Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

NEW WRIT,

For the Borough of Wolverhampton (West Division), in the room of Sir ALFRED FREDERICK BIRD, Baronet, deceased.—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Jarrow Extension and Improvement Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.

Port of London and Midland Railway Bill (by Order),

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills

South Staffordshire Water Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

Stirling Corporation (Water, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-KAISER (PROPERTY IN PRUSSIA).

Sir R. CLOUGH: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the German Government is considering a payment of £5,000,000 sterling in gold to the ex-Kaiser for the purchase of his property in Prussia; and whether, if this is the case, suggestions might be made by the Allies to the effect that this sum had better be devoted to reparation work in the French and Belgian devastated territory?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): I am informed that the German Government have never considered any such payment. The second part of the question, therefore, does not arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING, PORTUGAL.

Sir W. SEAGER: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Portuguese Minister of Commerce is endeavouring to negotiate the sale of ex-German steamers, directly or indirectly, to German financial interests, and that, according to well-informed reports from Portugal, the intention is that the vessels, although actually German-owned, should continue to fly the Portuguese flag; whether it is realised that because the new Portuguese legislation discriminates against foreign shipping in respect of custom duties, harbour dues, etc., the German-owned vessels will, therefore, be placed in a much more favoured position than British ships; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The attitude of His Majesty's Government is explained in the letter to which I referred, in replying to various questions on this subject on 16th February. A copy of this letter has been laid in the Library of the House. The most recent evidence in my possession tends to show that the German interests involved are not substantial, and that if any deal take place, it will probably not be of the nature indicated by the hon. Member.

Sir W. SEAGER: Is it not true that the Germans are controlling these vessels, and if they are allowed to carry coal it will be to the great disadvantage of British ships? Will not the export of 500,000 tons of coal from Cardiff be seriously jeopardised unless something is done?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have said my information is that the German interest in this matter is very small. If my hon. Friend has any further information in his possession, I shall be glad to see it.

Mr. GILBERT: Have the German ships obtained by the Portuguese Government been sold yet?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I should like to have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

ARMY OF OCCUPATION (FRENCH COLONIAL TROOPS).

Mr. GILBERT: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state how many coloured troops the French have in their army of occupation in Germany; whether such coloured troops have been sent into Germany with the consent of the Supreme Council; whether any complaints or protests have been received from the German Government by His Majesty's Government against the use of such coloured troops; and, if so, what action has been taken by the British Government on the matter?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I understand that the strength of the French Colonial troops in the occupied territory of Germany is about 18,000. The composition of the French occupying force is a matter for the French Government. The answer to the third part of the question is in the negative. The fourth part, therefore, does not arise.

ARMY OF OCCUPATION, RHINE.

Mr. HOGGE: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether M. Clemenceau presented memoranda in favour of permanent occupation of the left bank of the Rhine at the Peace Conference at Paris on 26th February, 1919; and whether he pressed the same claim at a meeting with President Wilson and the Prime Minister on 14th March, 1919?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): In view of the publication abroad of proceedings of the Peace Conference, the Government are considering the desirability of issuing a Blue Book on the subject.

Mr. HOGGE: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman is unable to tell us that M. Clemenceau did present the memorandum?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It means exactly what I have said. Pending a decision, I prefer to make no statement whatever.

Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister has denied that that was done in this House, and can the right hon. Gentleman say why, when we ask if it was done, we are put off with such an answer?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think the hon. Member correctly quotes the Prime Minister. I am certain that if he does correctly quote the Prime Minister he will find that what he said is accurate.

REPARATION COMMISSION.

Mr. HOGGE: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether the British representatives to the Commission on Reparations, appointed at a plenary meeting of the Peace Conference on 25th January, included any members of the Committee which reported that Germany could pay £24,000,000,000; whether the case put by these representatives was founded on the Committee's Report; and, if so, whether he will now publish the Report?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative. The third part of the question does not therefore arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT.

MOHAMMED SAID PASHA (INTERVIEW).

Mr. SWAN: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that Mohammed Said Pasha, a former Prime Minister of Egypt, recently had an interview with the Sultan and gave the interview afterwards to the Press, and that he said on that occasion that he believed in capturing Egyptians through negotiation with Zaghloul; and whether His Majesty's Government is prepared to act upon this suggestion?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have no information as to the interview to which the hon. Member refers. The latter part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

NATIONAL DEBT.

Mr. SWAN: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the amount of Egypt's national debt at the commencement of the British occupation in 1882; and what is the amount of that debt to-day?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The capital of the Consolidated Egyptian debt in 1882 was approximately 97,000,000 Egyptian pounds. The amount outstanding in the hands of the public at the end of 1920 was approximately 86,000,000.

Mr. SWAN: How is it that there is no appreciable reduction of that debt, seeing that the debt to the Credit Bank, which was 27,000,000 in 1914, had fallen in 1921 to 17,000,000?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I should like to see that question on the Paper.

MILITARY COURT, ALEXANDRIA.

Mr. SWAN: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that on the third day on which the military court in Alexandria sat last month to try those accused of taking part in the demonstrations in December last the court refused to hear all the witnesses for the defence; and whether this procedure was also adopted by the military court which fried those accused of rioting in May?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have no information as to the procedure followed by the military courts to which the hon. Member refers.

OFFICIALS (NEWSPAPER CORRESPONDENTS).

Mr. CAIRNS: 9.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why, since Egypt is now administered by the British authorities, there being no Egyptian ministry responsible, the "Times" Cairo correspondent is allowed to hold a post in the Ministry of Agriculture in Egypt while he still corresponds with the "Times," this being contrary to the Order issued a short time ago forbidding newspaper correspondents, Egyptians or foreigners, to be at the same time Government officials?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I made to the hon. Member for Rothwell on 9th November fast. Egypt is not administered by the British authorities at the present moment, but by the Under-Secretaries of State, who are permanent officials of the Egyptian Government.

SIR R. WINGATE (CORRESPONDENCE).

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange for the publication of the correspondence which passed in 1918–19 between Sir Reginald Wingate and His Majesty's Government as to the settlement of the status of Egypt?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The correspondence to which my hon. and gallant Friend
refers was considered by the members of Lord Milner's mission, and no useful purpose would now be served by its publication.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is it not a fact that Sir Reginald Wingate recommended much the same policy as that now adopted at the instance of Lord Allenby, and in view of the fact that Lord Allenby's proposals are to be published next week, would it not be a matter of common justice that Sir Reginald Wingate's proposals should be published next week?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is argument rather than a question.

Sir H. CRAIK: Did not Sir Reginald Wingate ask that his correspondence should be published and did the Government refuse his request?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Did not Sir Reginald Wingate give in his resignation largely owing to the failure of the Government to adopt his policy?

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Owing to the great importance of this question, is not, the nation entitled to full information?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

H.M. S. "ENCHANTRESS."

Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: 11.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty when the Admiralty yacht "Enchantress" was last used by their Lordships, and for what purpose and for what length of time; when it is anticipated that she will again be used by their Lordships; and what is the annual cost of the upkeep of this vessel, including allowance for depreciation?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): H.M.S. "Enchantress" was last used by, the Admiralty on 3rd October, 1921—the final date of a cruise beginning on 14th September for a visit of inspection to the northern bases, and to the Atlantic Fleet at sea for the purpose of witnessing the fleet firing practice, and other exercises. For reasons of economy the Admiralty do not propose to commission the ship during the coming financial year, and intend to lay her up at Portsmouth, so that no expenditure on unkeep will be incurred in connection with her during 1922–23. The
estimated depreciation was computed in 1913 at £6,500 a year, but with a ship of this type, the depreciated value on the original cost depends upon the condition in which she is kept up.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: While thanking the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his very satisfactory answer, may I ask if the ship has yet been laid up, whether she has a crew on board, and when this economy will be actually carried out?

Mr. AMERY: The matter was left over for decision until the return of the First Lord. I understand the vessel will be laid up as soon as possible.

Captain Viscount CURZON: Would it not be more economical to scrap the ship altogether, or is she required for naval purposes?

Mr. AMERY: She is of considerable intrinsic value, and might be disposed of otherwise. The most economical thing would be to keep her for the time being, and lay her up, and to consider the whole business at a later date.

Commander BELLAIRS: In view of the recommendation of the Geddes Committee, should not this luxury yacht be sold?

Mr. AMERY: The present intention is to lay her up, which will cost practically nothing, and see at a later date what it is advisable to do with her.

Viscount CURZON: Is it not the definite policy of the Admiralty to dispose of this ship at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. AMERY: I cannot add anything to my answer.

HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "ASSISTANCE" (LAUNDRY).

Sir THOMAS BRAMSDON: 12.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that in the minutes of the meeting of the canteen representatives, held on 22nd July last, in connection with the closing down of the Navy, Army and Air Force institutes' laundry in His Majesty's Ship "Assistance," a statement occurs to the effect that efforts had been made to economise by reducing the civilian staff
and employing some service labour in lieu, but it still had not paid; whether such employment was authorised by the naval authorities; under what Vote are ratings so employed paid; and whether the Navy, Army and Air Force institutes are making use of service labour in any other direction?

Mr. AMERY: The answers to the first two parts of this question are in the affirmative. As the detailed circumstances with regard to the temporary employment of certain naval ratings in the laundry in His Majesty's Ship "Assistance" necessitate a somewhat lengthy statement, I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT, I might say at once, however, that the Navy, Army, and Air Force institutes are not making use of service labour in any other direction.
Following is the statement:
The facts are as follow: Laundries are fitted by the Admiralty on board a few of His Majesty's ships as part of their working organisation. The laundry in His Majesty's Ship "Assistance" was installed for the use of the Atlantic Fleet generally when cruising, and, as a matter of convenience, the Navy, Army and Air Force institutes were employed to run it. Owing to the conditions of the employment of His Majesty's Ship "Assistance," the laundry could not be conducted except at a loss; and in order to prevent the laundry closing down prior to the Atlantic Fleet proceeding on her spring cruise of 1921, the experiment was authorised by the local naval authorities of using a certain amount of service labour in the laundry, augmented by expert civilian laundry staff, the latter being provided by the Navy, Army and Air Force institutes. The naval ratings employed received remuneration over and above their naval nay from the Navy, Army and Air Force institutes at the rate of from 10s. to £1 a week for the work done by them in the laundry. The laundry still did not pay its way, and the arrangement with the Navy, Army and Air Force institutes was terminated in May, 1921. As regards the third part of the question, naval ratings are paid out of Vote 1 of the Navy Estimates. As regards the fourth part, it has been ascertained that the Navy, Army and Air Force institutes are not making use of naval service labour in any other direction.

OFFICIERS' MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.

Major Sir B. FALLE: 13.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty on what grounds it has been decided that no provision for marriage allowance for officers of the Royal Navy shall be made in the forthcoming Naval Estimates?

Mr. AMERY: I regret that I am unable to add anything to my reply of the 9th February to the hon. and gallant Member for the Shettleston Division.

Sir B. FALLE: Would not a statement that this is a just claim which will be dealt with when money matters allow, allay a considerable amount of discontent in the service?

Mr. AMERY: I think I made it clear to my hon. and gallant Friend that there are certain economies which may be regrettable, but which under present circumstances are necessary.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware, that before we separated last autumn, we had a Debate on this question in this House with the result that he himself said he proposed to give a temporary concession with regard to the marriage allowance for officers? Why has he abandoned that policy?

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot discuss that now.

LIEUT.-COMMANDERS (PROMOTION).

Viscount CURZON: 15.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is yet in a position to make any statement with reference to the promotion of lieut.-commanders to commanders, and with reference to the special scheme of retirement for officers of the Royal Navy surplus to requirement?

Mr. AMERY: I am afraid I am not yet in a position to make any statement.

Viscount CURZON: Can the hon. Gentleman give me any idea when he will be able to make the statement, in view of the fact that the failure to get promotion at the proper time is very disheartening to Naval officers?

Mr. AMERY: I am only too anxious to give the information.

Viscount CURZON: But when?

DARTMOUTH COLLEGE (CANTEEN).

Colonel BURN: 16.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that the canteen at the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth, deals with others than the cadets and employés at the college; and what steps does he propose to take to put a stop to this practice on the part of a Government establishment carried on under exceptionally advantageous conditions as compared with the traders of the town?

Mr. AMERY: The Admiralty instructions, which are strictly carried out by the canteen, are that active service ratings, naval pensioners and reservists serving at the Royal Naval College may deal at this canteen for themselves and their wives and families, but that civilians pure and simple employed in connection with the establishment shall not be permitted to deal at the canteen. This is in accordance with the authorised practice in naval canteens in His Majesty's ships and fleet establishments and no action is considered necessary.

Colonel BURN: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that civilians do, as a matter of fact, deal at this canteen and that it is impossible for private shopkeepers to compete with a Government establishment which gets its stores under exceptional advantages?

Mr. AMERY: I shall be very grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend if he will give me any specific instances, as the inquiries I have made have elicited the answer that no civilians are allowed to deal at these canteens.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it the policy of the Government to take upon itself work ordinarily done by private traders?

Mr. SPEAKER: The answer to that question was "No."

SUPPLY BRANCH.

Sir T. BRAMSDON: 17.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether a new branch, to be called the Supply Branch, is about to be created in the Royal Navy; if so, whether, in view of the rapidity of promotion consequent on the formation of a new branch, any ratings with a knowledge of account keeping and store keeping from other classes will be permitted to
transfer to the number required; and whether, in the event of it being necessary to create a number of warrant officers to officer the new branch, the Admiralty will select them from chief petty officers with a knowledge of account keeping and store keeping from all branches, provided they have passed both educationally and professionally for warrant rank?

Mr. AMERY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The whole question is being investigated by a Committee, and until the Committee reports I am not in a position to furnish information as to details.

Sir T. BRAMSDON: Will the hon. Gentleman inform me when the Committee have reported?

Mr. AMERY: Yes, I shall be happy to do so.

Lieut.-Colonel NALL: Will the hon. Gentleman see that if any men be required for this branch, preference shall be given to those who have been discharged before the Committee has reported?

LOWER DECK (PROMOTION).

Mr. L. MALONE: 18.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will assure the House that reductions in the personnel (officers) of the Royal Navy, which it may, on account of the Washington Conference or other reasons, be necessary to introduce, will not be allowed to restrict or hinder the development of the channels of promotion now open to men of the lower deck, and that the proportion of commissioned officers so recruited will be maintained?

Mr. AMERY: There is no intention of closing any of the present channels of promotion from the lower deck, which have been much extended during the last few years, but the number of such promotions will necessarily be affected by the reduced requirements of the Fleet. The Admiralty will continue to consider sympathetically any developments of the present arrangements which are shown to be for the good of the naval service as a whole and are practicable in existing circumstances.

Mr. MALONE: Will the hon. Gentleman give the assurance asked for in the
last part of the question, that the proportion will be maintained?

Mr. AMERY: I do not think I can give a definite assurance beyond the assurance of sympathy that I have just given.

NEW CONSTRUCTION.

Mr. HANNON: 19.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state the date at which one or more of the capital ships provided for in the Naval Estimates of the current financial year will be laid down; and whether, in the interests of the safety of the Empire, he will not allow further delay in giving effect to the programme of naval construction approved by Parliament last Session?

Mr. AMERY: None of the four super-Hoods contemplated in the current Estimates will be laid down unless one or more of the Powers who signed the Naval Treaty at Washington fail to ratify it, in which case the whole matter would require reconsideration. The date for the laying down of the two 35,000-ton vessels agreed upon at Washington will inevitably be delayed by the necessity of getting out new designs, and I am not yet in a position to give an exact date.

Mr. HANNON: Will the hon. Gentleman take care that no panic on the ground of economy will interfere with the efficiency of the Fleet?

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake that one of the ships that are to be laid down will be built at Davenport?

OFFICERS' SERVANTS.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 20.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is proposed to abolish the officers' servants class in accordance with the recommendation of the Geddes Committee?

Mr. AMERY: No, Sir. I might add that the recommendation in question was based on the erroneous impression that officers' servants do not form part of the necessary fighting complement of the ship.

WATER POLICE.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 21.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is proposed to save
the present high cost of water police by employing active service ratings in accordance with the recommendation of the Geddes Committee?

Mr. AMERY: Neither the Admiralty nor the Assistant Commissioner of Metropolitan Police, who advises them, consider that the water police can be abolished without grave loss of public property which would far exceed the cost of this Force, but the Commissioner has now concurred in certain reductions which will effect substantial economies.

NEW WORKS.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 22.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is still proposed to spend £340,000 on new works in the coming financial year?

The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Commander Eyres-Monsell): No, Sir.

SENIOR OFFICERS (RETIRED PAY).

Major KELLEY: 23.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what is the increased charge to the State for retired pay which results from the practice of allowing a senior naval officer to take the rank of admiral and fly his flag for one day on retiring?

Mr. AMERY: I assume that the practice referred to is that introduced by Order-in-Council of 9th March, 1914, under which a captain who is not to be employed as a flag officer, but is qualified for promotion, is promoted when his turn comes, and after one day on the flag list is retired with the retired pay of a rear-admiral. Under the arrangements previously in force, an officer in such circumstances, in accordance with the long established custom of the Naval Service, would have been promoted when his turn came and retained on the flag list until retired for non-service. As the retired pay of a rear-admiral is dependent upon length of service, towards which half-pay time counts as one-third, the present arrangement, as compared with that previously in force, results, in the great majority of cases, in the officer receiving a slightly decreased rate of retired pay. The total cost of the arrangement to the State, however, involves a number of other considerations, such as the number of promotions to flag rank, the size of the
flag list, etc., and it would not be possible, without complicated actuarial calculations, to work out the eventual financial effects of the two systems. There is no doubt, however, that the present system is more conducive to efficiency, and the Admiralty consider it is justified on that ground.

PRIZE MONEY (FINAL DISTRIBUTION).

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 26.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the distress prevailing at the different naval ports, he can make any further statement with regard to the distribution of the naval prize money?

Mr. AMERY: It will not be practicable to fix the value of a share in the final distribution of prize money until some date in March. In these circumstances, I regret that it will not be possible to begin the distribution until early in April.

COMMANDERS-IN-CHIEF (HOME STATIONS).

Mr. BRIANT: 27.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many stations for commanders-in-chief on shore at home were in existence prior to the War; are ships, and, if so, how many, located in the area of the commanders-in-chief of the Coast of Scotland and Western Approaches; what is the work for which 140 members of staff and retinue are employed; is separate housing accommodation provided for each of the officers of the two stations mentioned; and why is it necessary to pay at the average rate of £68 per head for lodging

Mr. AMERY: As the reply to this question is very long, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. BRIANT: Is it not possible to let us know at once whether these stations are going to be demobilised or not?

Mr. AMERY: Yes, Sir. In consequence of the situation resulting from the Washington Conference, it has been decided that both the Commander-in-Chief, Coast of Scotland, and the Commander-in-Chief, Western Approaches, can be dispensed with.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask what the Washington Conference has to do with disbanding a post on the East Coast of Scotland?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise here.
The following is the prepared reply:
As regards part 1 of the question, there were five stations on shore at home prior to the War—at Portsmouth, Devonport, Chatham, Rosyth, and Queenstown. The first three were commanded by flag officers with the title of Commander-in-Chief. Rosyth was commanded by an admiral, with the title of Admiral Commanding on the Coast of Scotland; Queenstown by a vice-admiral, with the title of Vice-Admiral Commanding on the Coast of Ireland.
As regards part 2, the following ships are located in the areas mentioned:
Coast of Scotland.—Three battle cruisers, two aircraft carriers, one battleship, three flotilla leaders, 29 torpedo boat destroyers, one sloop, seven drifters. In addition, there are the following ships for disposal: Five battleships, one cruiser, 13 minesweepers, one sloop, one submarine.
Western Approaches.—One light cruiser, four torpedo boat destroyers, two sloops, seven trawlers, two drifters, four harbour launches. In addition, there are the following ships for disposal: Five cruisers, six sloops, one gunboat.
As regards Part III, each Commander-in-Chief is assisted by a Chief of Staff and a War Staff Officer. These officers deal principally with movements of ships, arrangements for refits, port organisation, training, preparation for war, liaison with military and air force, business with local authorities. The Chief of Staff is the Commander-in-Chief's deputy for all questions coming under his jurisdiction.
The Maintenance, Officer and engineer officers deal with the upkeep of the ships, vessels, and small craft in the command. The intelligence officers on the Commander-in-Chief's staff are part of the Naval Intelligence system of the British Isles. They collect and distribute information throughout the command and to the Admiralty. They are also the distributing authorities for confidential hooks and documents.
The Flag Lieutenant, who is also the Commander-in-Chief's aide-de-camp, and the signal personnel, carry out all the signalling of the port. The Secretary,
Secretary's clerks, writers, printers, and orderlies carry out the clerical work.
The medical officers care for the health of the personnel in the port, including the officers and ratings of ships and small craft refitting when the ships have no medical officers available.
The above constitute the headquarters staff, totalling 91 officers and ratings for the two Commands. In addition to these, there are 49 ratings, comprising 23 boats' crews and 26 bandsmen, which constitute the personal retinues of the two Commanders-in-Chief.
A detailed list of staff and retinue is given in Appendix (F.1) (page 45) of the First. Interim Report of the Committee on National Expenditure.
As regards Part IV, the Commander-in-Chief, Coast of Scotland, is provided with an official residence for himself and domestic staff. A residence is also provided for his secretary. There is no other accommodation provided for Commander-in-Chief's officers, but some unmarried ratings are accommodated in temporary quarters attached to the Commander-in-Chief's offices.
The Commander-in-Chief, Western Approaches, is likewise provided with an official residence for himself and domestic staff, and his secretary also occupies an official residence.
As regards Part V, I would point out that all officers of the Fleet are entitled to service accommodation or allowances in lieu if in the absence of such accommodation they have to find their own.
The allowances payable to officers under the Regulations are as follows:—



Annual Rate.


Flag Officers and Captains R.N.
£


and Lieut.-Colonel and above R.M.
100


Commanders and Lieut.-Commanders and Lieutenants and Officers of corresponding rank
80


All other Officers
60


I may, however, point out that, in view of the change in the general situation brought about by the Washington Conference, orders have already been given for the abolition of the appointment of the Commander-in-Chief, Coast of Scotland, and for the amalgamation of the Western Approaches Command with that of Commander-in-Chief, Devonport.

PORTSMOUTH DOCKYARD.

Sir B. FALLE: 28.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he can make any statement as to the Marlborough Gate, Portsmouth Dockyard?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: The Admiralty are at present investigating means of reducing the heavy cost of the police in the Royal yards, and the closing of this gate would give one opportunity for saving considerable expense. No final decision has yet been taken in the matter.

H.M.S. "VICTORY."

Sir B. FALLE: 29.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he can make any statement as to H.M.S. "Victory"?

Mr. AMERY: The future of H.M.S. "Victory" is still under consideration. I greatly regret to say that it appears unlikely that she can again be maintained afloat.

WRITERS.

Sir T. BRAMSDON: 30.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the number of chief and first writers who have passed both professionally and educationally for warrant rank and are recommended for promotion, and the average age it is estimated these chief and petty officers will be on promotion to warrant rank?

Mr. AMERY: According to the latest information available at the Admiralty 54 chief writers have passed both professionally and educationally for warrant rank and have been continuously recommended for promotion. In view of this large number, the Admiralty do not consider that for the present any useful purpose would be served in their compiling and keeping up a roster of first writers qualified and recommended for warrant rank, as the claims of the chief writers already on the list must in equity first be satisfied. In the unlikely event of insufficient suitable chief writers being forthcoming, steps will be taken to obtain particulars of first writers who are duly qualified and recommended for promotion. Until the post-War establishment of this branch is definitely fixed, it is not possible to give any estimate of the average age at which these chief petty officers and petty officers will be promoted to warrant rank.

WASHINGTON CONFERENCE (SUBMARINES).

Mr. LAMBERT: 14.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he has any explanation to offer with regard to the disputed version of a translation which attributed to French naval officers sympathy with German submarine atrocities during the late War?

Mr. AMERY: This matter has formed the subject of considerable controversy in the Press, and the statements of my Noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty with regard to it have no doubt been seen by the right hon. Member. To these I do not think I can usefully add anything, beyond saying that, in the opinion of the Admiralty, the article by Captain Castex, to which my Noble Friend drew attention at the Washington Conference, does clearly express approval of German unlimited submarine warfare, as practised in the late War.

DOYLE: 24.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what is the relative position of this country and France respecting the building of submarines; and what steps have been taken by the respective heads of the navies to meet in friendly conference with the object of adjusting the views of the two countries?

Mr. AMERY: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply of the 9th February to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge). As regards the second part, no such steps have been taken by the Admiralty.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 25.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the recently translated book by Captain Castex showing that the said Castex approved of the German submarine tactics; and whether he will draw the attention of the French Government to the frank expression of these views so expensive to this country?

Mr. AMERY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part of the question, I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that my Noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty drew the attention of his French colleagues on
the Committee on the Limitation of Naval Armament at Washington to the articles referred to, and elicited the most emphatic and vigorous repudiation of them both by Admiral de Bon and by M. Sarraut, the Head of the French Delegation, speaking on behalf of the French Government. In these circumstances, it is not considered necessary to take any further steps to bring these articles to the formal notice of the French Government.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it possible that the Admiralty have not seen the subsequent book by Captain Castex, which was reviewed in the "Manchester Guardian" the day before yesterday, and is the Admiralty still under the impression that there are only these articles which were quoted by the First Lord, and no other evidence?

Mr. AMERY: I have seen the book, and understand that it consists of the articles in a cover.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it in order for an hon. Member to mention the name of a newspaper when he is asking a question?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member was referring to a statement made in a newspaper.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

BUILDING TRADE.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 31.
asked the Minister of Labour the total number of those engaged in the various branches of the building trade who are registered as unemployed at the Employment Exchanges at the present time, and the weekly amount of unemployed benefit which they are drawing?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): The number of persons in the building trades of the United Kingdom registered at Employment Exchanges as unemployed at 31st January was 176,119, of whom 100,752 were labourers. The estimated amount of unemployment benefit drawn in respect of the week ended 31st January was about £105,000.

Mr. THOMSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether it would be more economical that these men should be building houses than that they should
be drawing unemployment pay; and if so, will he make representations to his colleague the Minister of Health accordingly?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not think that arises.

STATISTICS.

Captain BAGLEY: 34.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will give the latest figures for persons drawing unemployment benefit, showing, respectively, the numbers of unemployed persons drawing benefit for dependent wives (or husbands) and children, the total number of children involved, and the total number of persons drawing benefit of any kind?

Dr. MACNAMARA: At 31st January, the number of persons in the United Kingdom drawing unemployment benefit was approximately 2,087,000, of whom 1,800,000 were wholly unemployed, and 287,000 were on short-time. Of this total of 2,087,000, about 689,900 were also drawing grants in respect of dependants, covering about 619,000 wives and housekeepers (or invalided husbands), and about 1,023,000 children.

Mr. RENDALL: 36.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his Department has prepared, or can prepare, an estimate as to the number of unemployed men, women, and boys there are in the United Kingdom, and who are not registered as unemployed; and, if so, what number they amount to?

Dr. MACNAMARA: There is no means of making a reliable estimate of the numbers unemployed who are not registered at the Employment Exchanges. In view of the fact, however, that the great majority of workpeople are in insured trades and are therefore registered for unemployment benefit, I have no reason to suppose that this number is at all large relatively to the number so registered.

LAPSED INSURANCE POLICIES.

Mr. L. MALONE: 33.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the serious position caused to unemployed persons who, owing to unemployment, are unable to meet their insurance premiums and who are now receiving lapse notices from the leading assurance companies; and whether he will consider the intro-
duction of measures to obtain for unemployed persons a moratorium to cover insurance?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I have been asked to reply. Recommendations for dealing with hardship resulting from lapsed policies were made by Lord Parmoor's Committee on Industrial Assurance, and, as stated in reply to a question on Monday, I hope to introduce legislation on this subject at an early date.

WOMEN CLEANERS.

Mr. BRIANT: 35.
asked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been called to the hardship inflicted on the women cleaners who have been recently discharged from Government offices by reason of the decision of a court of law that they are not eligible for the unemployment grant; and if, in view of the fact that they and the Government believed that they were covered by the Unemployment Act, he will introduce a Bill so as to bring them within the benefits of the Act?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am aware that as a result of the recent decision of the High Court women cleaners in Government and other offices are not insured against unemployment, and consequently are no longer entitled to unemployment benefit when discharged. As I informed my hon. Friend on Wednesday last, any such person who has paid more in contributions than she has received in benefit may apply for refund of balance. I am not prepared to introduce legislation in the direction suggested by my hon. Friend.

RELIEF WORKS (GOVERNMENT GRANTS).

Mr. HALLS: 38.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the Government are proposing to place further funds at the disposal of the Unemployed Grants Committee in order that local authorities may obtain financial assistance to put into operation schemes of work that they have waiting to be done?

Mr. H. YOUNG: I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave yesterday to the last part of the question on this subject put by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough West.

JUVENILES.

Mr. GILBERT: 39.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his Department has made any fresh arrangements as regards the helping of juveniles at Employment Exchanges; whether an officer is now attached to schools in London; and whether girls or boys leaving school can only obtain the help of Employment Exchanges for employment through the officers attached to the schools, or if they can apply to any Employment Exchange dealing with juveniles?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Since August last officers of the Juvenile Departments of the Exchanges have attended at day continuation schools in order to advise and place in employment the juveniles concerned. To obviate the necessity for the attendance of juveniles requiring employment both at the day continuation schools and at the Juvenile Departments, juveniles register at the Exchanges and not at the schools.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at these day continuation schools they sometimes play football?

Dr. MACNAMARA: That question should be put to the Minister of Education.

SCHOOL CARETAKERS.

Mr. SEXTON: 43.
asked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been called to the case of A. W. Punshon, of 165, Duke Street, St. Helens, who, as caretaker of an elementary school, was informed that he would be included as a workman in the Unemployed Insurance Act, 1920, and would be required to contribute in accordance with its provisions and who, on making application lately for unemployed benefit for which he was compelled to contribute, is informed that, owing to a recent legal decision in the Law Courts, he is not a workman within the meaning of the Act; and, in view of the fact that the man has contributed to the Act and his right to benefit has been admitted by his having received benefit for one or two periods of unemployment previously, and that he is now entirely dependent on relief, will he take the necessary steps to compensate the man?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Caretakers of elementary schools were originally regarded as insurable, but under a recent decision of the High Court, which is final
and conclusive, they are held not to be insurable. Consequently no benefit is payable in respect of employment in that capacity. As Mr. Punshon has apparently received benefit to which, strictly speaking, he was not entitled I cannot agree that he has any claim to compensation, but if he has paid more in contributions than he has received in benefit he may apply for a refund of the balance.

Mr. SEXTON: Was it not on the initiative of the right hon. Gentleman's Department that these proceedings were taken in the High Court, and, if so, why?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I should like to have notice of that question.

Mr. SEXTON: I suppose we are to assume that it is the voice of Jacob and the hand of Esau in this case?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not know what that means.

RELIEF, WEST HAM.

Mr. W. THORNE: 63.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the West Ham Board of Guardians are relieving about 10,000 cases each week at a cost of about £15,000; that, this time last year they were only paying out about £8,000 per week; that they have already paid out £590,00 in unemployment relief; and that they are £330,000 overdrawn at the bank; and whether the Government is prepared to give any financial relief to the West Ham Board of Guardians and other guardians in other parts of the country in consequence of the heavy burden that the ratepayers are called upon to meet?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): I am aware of the circumstances of the West Ham Union. I have sanctioned the payment of interest by the guardians on an overdraft of £250,000 up to the 31st March, and I am considering a further request which they have made for a loan from the Government of £300,000.

Mr. THORNE: Is it the intention of the Government to relieve places like West Ham and the districts of other local authorities in many parts of the country who are bearing this terrible burden? This state of things cannot go on for ever.

Sir A. MOND: We all hope that it will not go on for ever. The Govern-
ment is assisting these localities by enabling them to raise loans spread over a considerable period.

Mr. THORNE: Does not relieving the guardians in that direction simply mean that they will have to pay in the long run?

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot enter into debate on that subject.

HEALTH INSURANCE (PAYMENTS).

Sir R. CLOUGH: 66.
asked the Minister of Health if he can now make any statement as to the position with respect to health insurance this year of insured persons who through unemployment have been able to maintain their payments in connection with the national health insurance?

Sir A. MOND: Under the National Health Insurance (Prolongation of Insurance) Act, 1921, insured persons who have had prolonged periods of unemployment are kept in insurance until the 31st December, 1922, and by a special provision of the Arrears Regulations are entitled, until that date, to medical benefit, maternity benefit, and the minimum rates of sickness and disablement benefits. As regards their title to benefits during the year 1923 I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 15th instant to the hon. Member for the Westhoughton Division, a copy of which I am sending to him.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration in making these concessions that a number of these societies which are now solvent will be insolvent in the course of a few years?

Sir A. MOND: I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that any concessions made will be made after the most careful investigation and the solvency of none of these societies will be affected.

RELIEF WORK (TRAVELLING EXPENSES).

Mr. MILLS: 70.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in many districts where relief work schemes are in operation the workmen have to travel a considerable distance to and from their work, the cost amounting to several shillings per week; and whether it would be an infringement of the Regulations governing wages for the local authority to provide the necessary conveyance?

Sir A. MOND: No case of the kind referred to has previously been brought to my notice. A local authority would not be entitled to provide conveyance without the approval of the Unemployment Grants Committee, which is not likely to be given unless the circumstances are quite exceptional.

Mr. MILLS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many hundreds of unemployed men travel daily from London to the Dartford Division, which is already crowded with thousands of unemployed, and that every day they have to pay this fare, which is a great drain upon the meagre wage that they receive under the scheme?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is simply the question on the Paper put in other words.

Mr. MILLS: Except that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]

TRADE BOARDS INQUIRY.

Mr. ALFRED DAVIES (Clitheroe): 40.
asked the Minister of Labour the terms of reference of the Committee appointed under the chairmanship of Lord Cave to consider the operation of the Trade Boards Acts; and whether it is the policy of his Department to regard the inquiry on these terms of reference as a reason for refusing to confirm minimum rates of wages fixed by any particular Trade Board?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The terms of reference of the Committee now sitting under the chairmanship of Lord Cave are "to inquire into the working and effects of the Trade Boards Acts and to report what changes, if any, are required." Since the appointment of the Committee 35 sets of rates have been presented for confirmation. In the case of two of these, dealing with distributive trades, I felt bound to withhold confirmation on the ground that it appeared possible that the recommendations of the Committee might have an important bearing upon the work of the Trade Boards concerned. Of the remaining 33 sets of rates, I have referred back one for reasons not connected with the Committee, and I have confirmed 27. The other five, having been recently fixed, are still under my consideration.

GROCERY TRADE BOARD.

Mr. ALFRED DAVIES: 41.
asked the Minister of Labour the date on which the grocery Trade Board was constituted; the date on which it first fixed minimum rates and forwarded these to the Minister of Labour for confirmation; the date of the decision of the Minister to refuse to confirm these rates; the dates on which the Board subsequently forwarded reduced rates to the Minister for confirmation; and the date, in each case, of his decision in reference thereto?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The Trade Board was constituted on 23rd June, 1920, and presented certain rates for confirmation on 4th February and others on 12th March, 1921. These rates were referred back to the Board for further consideration on 22nd April and again after resubmission by the Board on 1st July. Reduced rates were presented for confirmation upon 18th November and were referred back to the Board on 9th February last. I would also refer my hon. Friend to the reply, of which I am sending him a copy, given yesterday on this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

NAVAL RATINGS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 44.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that his Department issued, in September, 1920, an official document M5/XIV (2nd Revision), entitled, "Reports upon Openings in Industries suitable for Disabled Ex-Service Men, Building Trade"; that on page 28 of this document it is stated that disabled ex-petty officers and leading seamen will receive rank allowance during periods of training under the scheme outlined in the pamphlet M5/XIV; if he will explain why this rank allowance has now been withdrawn from the ex-royal naval men and retained for ex-military men under training; and why payments already made on the authority of M5/XIV are being recovered from these disabled ex-naval petty officers and leading seamen?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I should, perhaps, at once assure my hon. and gallant Friend that, so far as I know, the position of the ex-naval ratings in training with us is not less favourable than that of the ex-soldier. For some time naval ratings
were receiving rank allowances from the Ministry of Labour and badge and petty time allowances from the Ministry of Pensions. The payment of both of these allowances could not be justified, and we discontinued our rank allowances. There had been some over-payments before the date of the change, and it was resolved not to recover these. If my hon. and gallant Friend has any case of recovery of payments made prior to 29th June last year, I will look into it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that where moneys were paid under the clearly set out terms of this official document these unfortunate men are being mulct of the payments, and does not he think that is a great injustice?

Dr. MACNAMARA: If it is stated as the hon. and gallant Gentleman states it, yes; but what I have tried to show is that they were getting double pay up to a certain point. We stopped that, of course, but we did not recover. We issued an order that double pay was not legal. Notice was given of that.

OVERSEAS SETTLEMENT.

Major COLFOX: 80.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the Gracious Speech from the Throne and the resolution passed at the Imperial Conference, the Government intend shortly to introduce legislation to enable the large numbers of ex-service men who made their applications too late to receive assistance under the scheme which terminated on 31st December last to obtain assistance to help them to emigrate to the Dominions; and, if so, when will such legislation be brought before the House?

Mr. AMERY: Yes, Sir. I hope the necessary legislation will be introduced shortly.

AIR MINISTRY.

Viscount CURZON: 83.
asked the Secretary of State for Air why girls are retained in his Department in the photographic section of the Directorate of Research; and why ex-service men should not be employed on this work?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Captain Guest): The replacement by
ex-service men of the women employed in the photographic section of the Directorate of Research was decided on some time ago, and is being carried out as speedily as possible.

TURKEY (BRITISH CLAIMS).

Mr. RAPER: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that His Majesty's Government have decided to make a loan of £2,000,000 to Austria on the security of Gobelin tapestries, His Majesty's Government can also see their way to make a similar loan to the British subjects who have approved claims against the Turkish Government arising out of the War, in view of the fact that these claims are recoverable from our late enemies, of the great suffering to many of the British claimants, and of the severe loss to British trade in the Near East which is in the meantime being occasioned.

Mr. HILTON YOUNG: No, Sir; the Government do not see their way to ask Parliament for authority to adopt this suggestion.

Mr. RAPER: Is it now to be the permanent policy of the Government to give money to assist ex-enemy subjects and to refuse to assist British subjects?

Mr. YOUNG: I really think that implication is quite unfair.

RUSSIA (FAMINE RELIEF).

The following question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. G. BARNES:
46. To ask the Prime Minister if he has received the resolutions, among others, unanimously adopted by the Glasgow City Council and the Glasgow Trade Council, urging the Government to grant relief to the non-Bolshevist Russian people stricken by famine; has his attention been called to the statements made by Sir Benjamin Robertson and Dr. Nansen to the effect that money is required for seed for next harvest which cannot be procured in time by voluntary agency; and whether, having regard to the urgency of the matter, he can now reconsider the whole question with a view to making a grant, and thereby possibly stimulate other Governments to do likewise, so as to help in averting even a greater calamity next year?

Mr. BARNES: Pending further consideration I have been asked to defer this question till next Thursday. May I ask the Prime Minister if he will get someone to attend a meeting to-morrow to be addressed by Sir Benjamin Robertson, so that he may have full information on the matter?

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

CATHOLIC WORKERS, BELFAST.

Mr. DEVLIN: 47.
asked the Prime Minister what steps have been taken to restore the expelled Catholic workers to their employment in Belfast; and what effective effort has been made to mitigate the lot of those who are still out of work?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): The Government cannot undertake, nor would it be proper that they should undertake, to answer in this House questions regarding matters of administration for which another Government is solely responsible; but I have complete confidence that that Government is taking all possible steps to carry out in the letter and in the spirit the agreement arrived at between the Prime Minister for Northern Ireland and Mr. Collins on this subject.

Mr. DEVLIN: Did not the right hon. Gentleman in his speech in introducing the Treaty Bill distinctly promise that he would enter into negotiations with Sir James Craig and that he had hopes that effective steps would be taken to have these expelled workers restored to their employment, and is it a fact that on the strength of that promise I am now putting the question in order to find out whether it is going to be performed?

Mr. DONALD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these men are quite capable of looking after their own affairs, also that the speech delivered the other night by the hon. Member for the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin) has gone a long way to prevent a settlement?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The facts undoubtedly are that the boycott, which was in itself an improper thing, of Ulster goods was removed by the Southern Government and it was the counterpart to that that every effort should he made by the Northern Government to secure the reinstatement and employment of these Catholic workers, who, in the troubles
through which Ireland has been passing, had been forcibly expelled from the yards. Owing to the great un-employment which prevails there and in other parts of the United Kingdom, no means have yet been arrived at of securing this side of the agreement, and it was understood that where work did not exist of course it could not be provided. They could only take off the invidious barrier. I know that Sir James Craig is trying his best. He has made various suggestions to this Government to help in various ways, but they all cost money and money to-day is hard to come by.

Mr. DEVLIN: Are we to understand that since the Southern Government have most effectively carried out their part of the bargain and that Sir James Craig states, according to the right hon. Gentleman, that he is willing to carry out the bargain but it costs money on the part of the Government, the Government are going to stand in the way of having the other side of the bargain carried out owing to financial causes, and that these 5,000 people are to remain out of employment, and no effort is to be made to restore them?

Mr. CHURCHILL: All the Southern Government had to do was to withdraw an edict—a wrong thing—namely, to take off the boycott. A positive act is required on the other side, not merely to take off the boycott of Catholic workmen, but to provide them with work, which is quite another matter—a far more difficult thing to do, and the problem that is being faced.

CATTLE EMBARGO INQUIRY.

Major M. WOOD: 76.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether any expense was incurred by the Department of Agriculture in Ireland in briefing counsel and leading evidence before the Commission on the Importation of Canadian Cattle in opposition to the removal of the embargo; and, if so, what was the amount of the expense so incurred?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir Hamar Greenwood): Counsel were employed by the Department to assist them in watching the interests of Irish agriculture before the Commission. The expenditure incurred in this connection amounts to £1,823 3s. 10d.;
which will not form a charge on voted monies, but will be defrayed from the Endowment Fund of the Department of Agriculture in Ireland.

Major WOOD: Before incurring that expense, did they find out whether counsel would appear on the other side?

Mr. RATCLIFFE: Is it proposed to import Canadian cattle into Ireland?

Major WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put it down.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS (EXPENDITURE).

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, while Great Britain is called upon to pay 10 per cent. of the total expenditure of the League of Nations, this country has no representative on the Commission of Control responsible for the finances of the League; will he take the necessary steps to remedy this deficiency; whether his attention has been called to the suggestion made in the Second Interim Report of the Committee on National Expenditure that some method should be devised whereby a closer check may be kept on the activities of the League, which appear to involve considerable expenditure; and will he say what steps, if any, it is proposed to take to secure this end?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Balfour): The contribution of Great Britain will be something between 9 and 10 per cent. The League finances go through three stages. Only the first of these stages is dealt with by the Commission of Control, the majority of which is, by the decision of the Assembly, selected from nations not represented on the Council. The duty of this Commission has nothing whatever to do with policy, or with the objects to which the financial resources of the League are devoted. It simply has to see that money devoted for a specific purpose is devoted to that purpose.
In the second place, the budget estimates are scrutinised by the Council of the League. In the third place, they are scrutinised and passed by the General
Assembly of the League, after they have been examined by a special Commission appointed to look into them.
It is difficult to see what further checks on the expenditure of the League can be devised, nor do the Committee on National Expenditure make any suggestions to that effect. The policy, whether involving expenditure or not, can only be determined by the unanimous vote of the Assembly of 51 nations, or by the Council, on which this country is represented.
As far as I am able to form an opinion on the matter, the results of League activities have been achieved at a relatively small pecuniary cost.

Sir J. D. REES: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety, in the interests of the taxpayer, of publishing a list of the 40 odd nations who belong to the League, marking with a star those whose revenues are above an unappreciable amount, and with an asterisk those who have paid their subscriptions?

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the effect of his answer is that on behalf of his Government he is—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must follow the answer.

GENOA CONFERENCE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can yet give the House the names of the British delegates to the proposed Conference at Genoa; whether there has been any alteration in the date for the proposed Genoa Conference; and, if so, what is the reason for such alteration?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it will be possible to state the names of the British delegates?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid I cannot.

BRITISH MUSEUM (ART COLLECTION).

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: 53.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is
aware that the Trustees of the National Gallery of British Art are about to hold a loan exhibition of the works of John Sell Cotman and some related painters of the Norwich School at Millbank; whether he is aware that some of the finest of Cotman's pictures, the property of the nation, are in the British Museum, but that, owing to the present law, the British Museum is prevented from lending its Cotmans to the Trustees of the National Gallery for exhibition; whether, seeing that exhibitions are from time to time organised for the education and enjoyment of the nation itself, he will contrive means, either by special legislation or otherwise, to enable the British Museum to lend its treasures for short periods to exhibitions held in London under the control of the National Gallery; and, if not, will he request the Law Officers of the Crown to assist him to discover a method by which the British Museum may be empowered to exhibit its pictures and drawings on occasions such as those now outlined, in order that the British Museum may not be merely a storage place for such works of art as cannot be exhibited continuously on the walls of that institution?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am informed by the trustees of the British Museum, that they are not in favour of reversing the policy, carefully considered and established by law, which retains in the Museum all the collections belonging to it. It is to the advantage of students to be able to study prints and drawings collectively, instead of having them scattered over the kingdom, and the risks attendant on transport and exhibition are avoided. The Museum is not merely a storage place, but a place of study, and the present policy is believed to be the best in the interests of art and of art students. So far as the Cotman drawings are concerned, an exhibition of them is being held at the British Museum concurrently with that at the National Gallery of British Art. It is part of the settled policy of the trustees to vary the exhibitions of prints and drawings at frequent intervals, and to take advantage of special occasions to call attention to the work of special artists or schools.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Is it not a fact that the object of the trustees of the National Gallery in holding this special exhibition is for the purpose of allowing
the public to compare the various phases of the work, and, if so, what good purpose is served by having two exhibitions some miles apart, one at Millbank and the other at the British Museum?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is only a repetition of the question which I have already answered.

PARLIAMENTARY REGISTERS.

Mr. C. PERCY: 57.
asked the Minister of Health whether the Government will take the necessary steps to provide that the parliamentary registers prepared under The Representation of the People Act, 1918, shall be published only once annually, which would effect a considerable economy, and answer all reasonable purposes?

Mr. SHORTT: I have been asked to reply. The question of publication of the registers of electors annually instead of half-yearly has been under consideration, but no decision has yet been taken.

Mr. PERCY: Is not that practically the same reply that I had last year to the same question?

Mr. SHORTT: I am sorry that I am not in a position to say.

Mr. BRIANT: Is it not a fact that for some years only supplementary lists have been issued, and that as a complete register is not being kept a very small amount is involved?

Mr. SHORTT: That is so.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

EMPTY HOUSES.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 58.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received representations from a large number of local authorities protesting against the withholding from use of many empty houses, and requesting power to compel their occupation in view of the serious shortage of housing accommodation; and, if be cannot reconsider his refusal to promote a Bill to give them these powers, will he consider the introduction of a temporary Measure providing for the rating of such houses so long as there is a shortage of house accommodation in their district, in order to protect the local
authorities from the loss in revenue caused by these houses being withheld from occupation?

Sir A. MOND: I have received some representations from local authorities on this subject. As regards the last part of the question, I am afraid I can only refer to the replies which I recently gave to similar questions by the hon. Members for Heywood and Radcliffe Division and the Dartford Division.

Mr. THOMSON: Are there not some local authorities who have this power already, and is it not possible to extend that?

Sir A. MOND: I have been looking into that matter. The Corporation of London have certain powers under an Act for levying a rate on empty houses. What my hon. Friend asks me to do is to give power for the levying of rates on persons who do not wish to let their houses, which is a very different question. It would be psychologically impossible to find out the psychology of the owner in every district.

Mr. THOMSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman apply to the provinces that which already applies to the City of London?

Sir A. MOND: I am considering that at the present time.

RENT RESTRICTION ACT.

Colonel BURN: 61.
asked the Minister of Health how long it is intended that the Rent Restriction Act shall remain in operation?

Sir A. MOND: It is provided in the Act that it shall continue in force until 24th June, 1923.

COMPLETION (EXTENSION OF TIME).

Mr. THOMSON: 65.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, owing to the action of his Ministry in delaying assent to the carrying out of schemes already approved by them, it will be impossible for local authorities to complete all the houses for which provisional sanction has been obtained before July, 1922; and, under these circumstances, will the Government grant to English authorities the same extension of time for completion that has been pro-
mised to Scotch housing authorities and to the London County Council?

Sir A. MOND: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Exeter on Monday last.

Mr. THOMSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to reply to the last part of my question?

Sir A. MOND: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the answer to which I am referring I think he will find that is dealt with.

BUILDING COST.

Mr. GILLIS: 73.
asked the Minister of Health whether the cost per house given by him for the periods prior to the 30th June, between 30th June and 31st December, 1921, and during the current years were for building only; and, if so, can he give the total cost per house for the periods, including land and the preparation of site?

Sir A. MOND: The figures given in my reply to the hon. Member for Bedwellty on the 15th February were approved tender prices including house drains, baths and fences, and subject to adjustments for variations in cost of labour and materials. The average all-in cost of houses in contracts made before June, 1921, is approximately £1,100. For periods subsequent to June, 1921, £120 should be added to the figures in my previous answer to cover the cost of land, development and other expenses.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EXPENDI- TURE).

Viscount CURZON: 59.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the appointment of some body similar in constitution and functions to the Geddes Committee to overhaul the expenditure of local bodies all over the country and indicate for the benefit of the ratepayers where economies can be made?

Sir A. MOND: The expenditure of local bodies is primarily a question for the local ratepayers and it is for their representatives to take the necessary steps to overhaul their expenditure. All I can do is to draw their attention to the necessity for economy in local administration, and last February my Department
issued a circular, a copy of which I am sending my noble and gallant Friend, urging them to review their commitments. From my knowledge that local authorities generally have made considerable efforts to reduce their expenditure, I have no doubt that in many instances this review will be reflected in a reduction of rates.

ASYLUMS (MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCE).

Mr. HURD: 60.
asked the Minister of Health what reply he is making to representations from ratepayers' associations and meetings, as for instance from the Frome Division, protesting against the inadequacy of the Government payment of 4s. per head weekly for the maintenance of inmates in county asylums, seeing the great increase in the cost of maintenance and the unfair burden thus thrown upon the rates?

Sir A. MOND: The amount of this grant was based on the estimated difference between the cost of maintenance in workhouses and in asylums, respectively, and while it is true that the cost of maintenance in an asylum has increased since the grant was fixed, it is equally true that the cost of maintenance in a workhouse has also increased. It has been repeatedly stated, in replies to questions put in this House, that no revision of the grant can be undertaken at the present time.

COUNTY BOROUGHS.

Mr. TURTON: 62.
asked the Minister of Health, in view of the fact that he received on the 7th December last a deputation form the County Councils' Association, who waited upon his to urge the appointment of a Royal Commission to consider the whole question of the creation and extension of county boroughs in its relation to county government, and that he then suggested that the Association should draft and submit to him proposed terms of reference for a Royal Commission, whether these draft terms were in fact submitted to him on the 30th December last; whether the Association may expect to receive a definite reply on the subject at an early date; and whether, until such reply has been received by the Associa-
tion, all further action in connection with the Leeds and Bradford Provisional. Orders will be suspended?

Sir A. MOND: I have received from the County Councils' Association the draft terms of reference for a Royal Commission suggested by them, and have written proposing a joint conference at the Ministry of Health with representatives of that Association and the Association of Municipal Corporations. I am not prepared to defer further action in connection with the Leeds and Bradford Provisional Orders.

Mr. LANE-FOX: Will the proposals embodied in these Orders come before the House very shortly?

Sir A. MOND: I could not say without notice.

Mr. BARRAND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at least 90 per cent. of the inhabitants of the districts involved in these schemes are strongly opposed to them? Is not that a sufficient reason for abandoning the schemes altogether?

Sir A. MOND: I have no power to postpone or abandon them. The ratepayer's have a statutory right to come to the House and it is for the House to decide whether or not the schemes will be carried out.

Mr. LUNN: If the Government have any policy of economy whatever why do they not adopt the suggestion of the hon. gentleman and prevent this waste of the ratepayers' money when the money is so much needed in other directions?

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot now enter into a debate upon the matter.

MILK SUPPLY.

Mr. HURD: 64.
asked the Minister of Health whether it is the experience of his Department that fresh milk forms the principal part of the diet in the successful treatment of tuberculosis; and whether he will advise all local-health authorities that they should use no substitutes for fresh milk in this or any other part of their administration?

Sir A. MOND: The answer is in the negative. I am advised that although milk may be an essential element of
special diets for tuberculous persons in certain stages of the disease, or for young children, a mixed general diet is preferable in the case of adults to one consisting mainly of milk. As regards the second part of the question, I am advised that certain substitutes, such as full cream dried milk, suitably prepared for use, are as nutritious as fresh milk so long as vitamines are provided in the necessary amounts in other parts of the diet.

Mr. MYERS: 67.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state the number of mechanical cream separators imported into the country in 1920 and 1921, with an estimate of the number now in use and having regard to the fact that milk thus treated loses nearly the whole of its nutritive properties in the process, and to what extent the milk is now being sold to the public as the genuine article; whether the public have adequate protection under existing procedure; whether he considers further powers to be necessary; and if, having regard to the whole circumstances, he will facilitate the Milk and Dairies Amendment Bill with a view to strengthening the powers of local authorities upon the matter?

Sir A. MOND: I have no information as to the number of mechanical separators imported into or in use in this country, but I understand that they are in general use for the making of cream and butter. The practice of selling separated milk by itself as whole milk is not a common one, and the existing powers of local authorities, under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, are, in my opinion, sufficient to enable them to deal with it.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 69.
asked the Minister of Health if it is proposed to introduce a Milk and Dairies Bill this Session?

Sir A. MOND: I cannot add anything at present to my reply to the hon. Member for North Newcastle on the 15th February.

Sir J. D. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great many local bodies do not want this?

Sir A. MOND: I have not seen all the local authorities.

STARVATION (DEATHS).

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 68.
asked the Minister of Health if he will issue a return showing the number of deaths from starvation during the past year?

Sir A. MOND: In former years special returns were made, but they were unsatisfactory and have been discontinued. If there were any deaths from starvation during the past year they will be recorded in the annual report of the Registrar-General.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH.

Mr. BRIANT: 71.
asked the Minister of Health whether it is his intention to issue any memorandum commenting on the findings of the Geddes Committee?

Sir A. MOND: It is not my intention to issue such a memorandum.

Mr. BRIANT: Has such a memorandum been compiled??

Sir A. MOND: I do not know what the hon. Member means by "such a memorandum."

BUSINESS COMMITTEE'S REPORTS.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I wish to ask the Leader of the House whether on the Consolidated Fund Bill, which I understand will be taken to-morrow, the opportunity will be taken by His Majesty's Government to make any statement—if it is in order—on the Geddes Committee's Reports?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that is not really a matter for the Government, but for me.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I can speak as to intention and it may make unnecessary a ruling on the point of Order. We do not propose to make a statement on the Consolidated Fund Bill this week, but I hope to be able to allot a day next week for consideration of the Geddes Reports as a whole. In that case I think my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would probably begin the discussion by a considered statement on behalf of His Majesty's Government.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: One day would not be sufficient for a discussion on the
whole of the Geddes Reports. It would require two days. [HON. MEMBERS: "Three days!"]

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot possibly allot more than one day next week. I imagine—subject to what Mr. Speaker may rule—there will be other opportunities of discussing the Geddes Report than the particular day which is allotted for the general statement on the subject.

Mr. LAMBERT: When the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes this reasoned statement, will he also announce the decision of the Government as to the course they intend to pursue with regard to the Geddes Reports?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer or any Minister, in the Debate which I am contemplating next week, will go into the details of all the different Estimates. He will make a general statement on the action proposed to be taken by the Government in consequence of the Geddes Reports.

Mr. SPEAKER: On the point of Order, I think a discussion would be in order on the second Consolidated Fund Bill; that is to say, the one which includes the Vote on Account for the whole of the Services. Clearly the different Ministers' salaries are there included, but it is distinctly not in order tomorrow. The first Consolidated Fund Bill is a special emergency Bill, and only matters relevant to the exact Votes therein contained will be in order.

LEE VALLEY (ADMINISTRATION).

Brigadier-General COLVIN: 74.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in order to secure a more equitable distribution of the burden of maintaining the waterways in the Lee Valley, which now falls on one section only, he will assist in giving effect to the recommendation that the administration of the whole of the Lee Valley shall be brought under one authority?

Sir A. MOND: I am prepared to consider any proposals that may be submitted, but I cannot give any undertaking to assist in giving effect to them.

TUBERCULOSIS (SPAHLINGER TREATMENT).

Mr. C. EDWARDS: 75.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that many people in all parts of the country are interested in Mr. H. Spahlinger's professed cure for tuberculosis; if he will now give the result of the unofficial investigations which he told the House some time ago had been made; whether investigations are still proceeding; and if he will make public the results as soon as complete?

Sir A. MOND: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I understand that the unofficial investigations referred to have been suspended until supplies of the serum are available and that this will not be for some months to come. I should certainly assume that the results of any independent investigations by competent persons into the efficacy of this treatment would be published.

PALESTINE (GREEK CHURCH DEBTS.)

Mr. RAPER: 77.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what amount has actually been paid in cash by the Zionist organisation for the Greek Orthodox Church land and buildings recently bought by them in Palestine; and did the Government consider other expedients could have been found to liquidate the debts of the Greek Orthodox Church of Palestine?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on the 14th February. He will have learnt that it was not the Zionist Organisation which purchased the lands and buildings referred to.

Mr. RAPER: Is it not a fact that certain Greek banks brought a proposal forward to pay off all outstanding debts?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think I should have notice of that question.

MAINTENANCE ORDERS (CANADA).

Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: 77.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether reciprocal arrangements have been made with the Dominion of Canada
for the enforcement of maintenance orders under the Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act, 1920; and, if not, whether steps are being taken to make such reciprocal arrangements?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is necessary for reciprocal legislation to be passed in Canada before maintenance orders under the Act referred to can be enforced in any part of the Dominion. I understand that the matter is under the consideration of several of the Provinicial Governments, but so far as I am aware, the necessary legislation has not yet been passed in any of the provinces.

Mr. MILLS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in every section of the British Empire there are outstanding cases of hardship inflicted on women who have been deserted?

IRAQ (AIR OPERATIONS).

Mr. L. MALONE: 82.
asked the Secretary of State for Air the amount of bombs dropped in Iraq during the past 12 months, the number of bombing operations in which either smoke or shell bombs have been carried, and the names of the towns and villages so attacked?

Captain GUEST: Exact information in regard to the particulars asked for is not available. No smoke bombs have been used. Such bombing operations as have taken place have been over unsettled outlying districts, the objective usually being tribal concentrations or encampments which would have no name on the map. A great part of air operations in Iraq consists of mere demonstrations, not involving the dropping of bombs.

THAMES AIR STATION.

Mr. GILBERT: 84.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether it has now been definitely decided to use the Thames as an air station; for what air services it is proposed to use the station; whether it is proposed to use the same the whole year round or only during the summer months can he state approximately when it will be opened; what arrangements have been made for landing passengers; and if it is proposed to set up a Customs Office in order to deal with luggage and merchandise brought to this station?

Captain GUEST: The answer to the first part of the question is, that it is the intention of the Air Ministry to carry out further experimental flights for a few weeks, to and from the Thames above Westminster Bridge, in the near future. No definite decision has, however, yet been reached to use this area as the terminal of a regular service, and I regret, therefore, that no serviceable information can be given in reply to the remaining parts of the question.

LOCOMOTIVES, WOOLWICH ARSENAL.

Sir W. DAVISON: 85.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether any, and, if so, how many locomotives are being built at Woolwich Arsenal, and to whose order; what was the estimated cost of such locomotives; and what is the probable profit or loss on the transaction?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. Sanders): An order for 100 locomotives was placed, with Cabinet authority, at Woolwich in October, 1919, by the Ministry of Munitions before the Arsenal reverted to the War Office, the object being to afford relief to unemployment. No arrangements were made for the disposal of the engines when built, but they were of a design suitable for use on British railways. So far as is known, no estimate of cost was prepared when the order was placed, but the locomotives have been built during a period of high prices, both for material and labour, and the cost is now estimated at £1,600,000. They have been reported to the Disposal and Liquidation Commission for sale. I cannot make any useful and reliable estimate of the ultimate loss.

Sir W. DAVISON: Have any of these locomotives been purchased or placed at all?

Sir R. SANDERS: I believe not.

Mr. A. HOPKINSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a very large number of railway locomotives belonging to the Ordnance Department which were used in France have not yet been sold?

Mr. MILLS: Is it a fact that the Geddes Committee, in estimating this loss of £1,600,000, entirely omitted the cost of reconstructing the works to make
them suitable for locomotive production, and was that production the result of the Prime Minister's declared policy of retaining the railways in the ownership of the Government? [An HON. MEMBER: "Send them to Russia!"]

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Mr. TURTON: 86.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is prepared to grant a full and searching inquiry into all the circumstances connected with the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, with special regard to its origin; whether the Ministry is satisfied that the present law and Regulations are sufficient to meet a terrible outbreak of the present character; and, if not, whether he will introduce legislation on the subject?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir A. Boscawen): I propose to appoint a Departmental Committee to inquire into the origin and other circumstances connected with the present out-break of foot-and-mouth disease. Pending the receipt of the report of this Committee, I do not propose to consider any revision of the existing legislation relating to diseases of animals, or of the Regulations made thereunder.

Mr. TURTON: Will the Departmental Committee inquire into all these facts, as it has been alleged in the Bodmin Division that over seven days were allowed to elapse between notification and slaughter, and that afterwards the slaughtered animals remained in the open field's, and that a period of 12 days elapsed between the notification and the final destruction of the animals?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question should be printed.

CROWN LANDS, FOREST OF DEAN.

Mr. WIGNALL: 87.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that the practice of using barbed wire for the protection of Crown land in the Forest of Dean is still carried on notwithstanding the promise recently made that barbed wire would be removed from those places where it was found to be dangerous to pedestrians and cattle; and will he take immediate steps to fulfil the promise made that plain wire would be substituted for barbed wire?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: There is still a certain quantity of barbed wire in use in the Forest of Dean, but the promise that it would be removed from places where it is found dangerous to pedestrians or cattle still holds good and any specific complaints will receive careful consideration.

Mr. WIGNALL: Are specific cases of injury to animals not being repeatedly reported, without any action being taken?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I think my hon. Friend is mistaken. Wherever a specific case is brought to our notice action is taken.

CIVIL SERVICE ARBITRATION BOARD.

Mr. BETTERTON: (by Private Notice)
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government contemplate any alteration of the functions at present discharged by the Civil Service Arbitration Board?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Sir Robert Horne): His Majesty's Government have been considering this matter. The conditions which led to the establishment of the Civil Service Arbitration Board some five years ago have been entirely changed by the formation of Whitley Councils for the discussion of questions affecting the remuneration and conditions of service of civil servants: and the Government have come to the conclusion that the continuance of the present arrangements for compulsory arbitration are inconsistent with, and to some extent militate against, the development of these Councils on the best lines. They have accordingly decided that the time has now come for bringing the present arbitration arrangements to an end. They have decided also that under these altered conditions it would be desirable to strengthen the National Whitley Council for the Civil Service by the appointment of some Members of this House who would form part of the official side.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

JOHN EDWARD SUTTON, esquire, for Borough of Manchester (Clayton Division).

ECCLESIASTICAL TITHE RENT- CHARGES (RATES) BILL,

"to amend The Ecclesiastical Tithe Rent-charge (Rates) Act, 1920, in respect of the relief or abatement to an owner of tithe rentcharge who holds more than one benefice," presented by Mr PRETYMAN; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, 2nd March, and to be printed. [Bill 38.]

STANDING ORDERS.

Resolutions reported from the Select Committee:

"1. That, in the case of the Blackburn Corporation, Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, on condition that Tramways Nos. 1 and 2 be struck out of the Bill: That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with."
"2. That, in the case of the Stock Conversion and Investment Trust, Limited (North Western Trust), Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

Resolutions agreed to.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to continue temporarily the Coroners (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1917, and Section seven of the Juries Act, 1918." [Coroners (Emergency Provisions Continuance) Bill [Lords.]

Standing Joint Committee on Indian Affairs,

That they have appointed a Committee consisting of 11 Lords to join with a Committee of the Commons as a Standing Joint Committee on Indian Affairs, and request the Commons to appoint an equal number of their Members to be joined with the said Lords.

Consolidation Bills,

That they communicate that they have come to the following Resolution, namely, That it is desirable that all Consolidation Bills in the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

REPORT [15th February].

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1921–22.

CLASS VI.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed [21st February] to Resolution
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £455,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for Superannuation, Compensation, Compassionate, and Additional Allowances, and Gratuities under sundry Statutes, for Compassionate Allowances, Gratuities, and Supplementary Pensions awarded by the Treasury, and for the Salaries of Medical Referees.

Which Amendment was to leave out "£455,000," and to insert instead thereof "£454,900."—[Sir Donald Maclean.]

Question again proposed, "That '£455,000,' stand part of the said Resolution."

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: On a point of Order. In the discussion yesterday I think quite a number of us forfeited our right to speak, and therefore, when my hon. Friend makes, as I hope he is going to make, a statement on the position as he has considered it after the Debate last night, if he would move the Adjournment of the Debate at the conclusion of his remarks, would not that allow those of us who wish to make another statement, however brief, to do so?

Mr. SPEAKER: No. A Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate would not give that opportunity, but perhaps I can suggest a method which would be fair both to the right hon. Gentleman and to other Members of the House. If he were to withdraw his Amendment, and allow me to put the Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," all Members except himself would then have a fresh right to speak. I think it might be the desire of the House to extend a special leave to the right hon. Gentleman in that event. Does he desire to take that course?

Sir D. MACLEAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): Towards the end of our discussion on the Report stage of this Vote yesterday I made a suggestion for the consideration of the House. These questions are undoubtedly questions of some elaboration and difficulty, and it was most reasonable, no doubt, that the House should require time for considering the bearings of that suggestion. I myself also found the time very useful in discovering how exactly that suggestion would bear upon the question. After investigation, I feel that I can clear the matter up perhaps for the benefit of the House in one or two minor particulars only. In the first place, I should say that yesterday I felt bound, until an opportunity of further consultation should afford itself, to make my suggestion in a somewhat tentative manner. I undertook to consider the possibility of introducing for the future a scheme for the assessment of all pensions to be assessed in the future which would bring the pension into relation with the cost of living. After such consideration as I have been able to give to this rather difficult question in the course of the hours that have elapsed, I now feel quite able to give that rather tentative undertaking in a much more definite form, and I can say definitely that such a scheme can be introduced and will be introduced. I have no further doubt about its possibility. I may say—and the House will not be surprised to learn after some of the arguments I addressed to it in the course of the Debate—that the point to which I was most particularly addressing my attention was as to the expense of such a new scheme, and I think I am prepared to take the optimistic view in order to carry this change out in accordance with what I recognise to be the strongly expressed opinion of the House.
As to what the actual nature of the scheme shall be, I think the House will quite recognise that I have not been able to work out and could not work out the details in the time available. This is one of the most difficult and intricate questions of financial administration, this question of the pension laws, and I should be, I think, failing in my duty to the House if, after such short notice
and such inadequate time for consideration, I was to attempt to lay before it to-day any detailed scheme. I can only give now, what I think will content the House, the undertaking that for the future a scheme shall be introduced whereby every pension that shall be granted after the present time shall be granted on such a basis that it shall be brought by periodic re-assessments into relation with the cost of living.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: To go up and down?

Mr. YOUNG: It appears to me that that would be reasonable, because the scheme of Civil Service bonuses went up and down. It did go up, as the House knows, and now it is going down, and in a scientific scheme it appears to me that we must allow for a bi-lateral movement, although, of course, we expect that prices and the cost of living will fall.

Lieut. - Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: They are going up now.

Mr. YOUNG: I will ask the House not to require more details now. That is the wide principle which the Government have conceded as the result of this Debate—to adopt that alternative scheme instead of the former scheme. I can only amplify that by saying that undoubtedly any such scheme should be made as flexible as possible, subject to the practical limitations upon administration and the cost of periodical reassessment, so that the delay of bringing the rate of pension into relation with the cost of living shall be as little as possible. That is essential to practical administration.

4.0 P.M.

Mr. INSKIP: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, when he says pensions will become variable as the cost of living rises and falls, that is to apply to the whole pension, or only that part which represents pensionable bonus?

Mr. YOUNG: That is just the sort of detail that does require such anxious consideration, but my preliminary impression must be, shortly, that the way in which it would work out would be that that part allocatable to the bonus would be the part which would rise and fall. I think at first sight that that would be so, but I confess that I approach the question
with very great diffidence at short notice, and I trust the House will consider that on any questions of detail I make my statement at the present time subject to some reservation. There is only one other matter concerning what was said yesterday that I should like to elucidate. I feel that in some of my observations in asking the House to give us this Vote now I may have given the impression that in asking for the Vote this year I was suggesting that, having got this Vote for this year, we should consider ourselves franked for this year and free not to introduce this alteration until next year. That was not my intention at all. The principle upon which this must be administered—and I think some of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree with me here—must be this, that we are free to make the change as soon as we have given notice to the parties affected. The parties affected receive notice by the proceedings in the House yesterday and to-day, and so this change will be introduced as from this time as affecting all pensions granted after this date. When I ask for the Vote for this year, I do not mean that we shall consider ourselves at liberty not to make this change until the end of the financial year. We shall make the change as regards all pensions granted from this time, and any savings to be effected by the change upon pensions falling due for payment in the course of this year—that is, between now and the end of the year—any savings upon pensions granted during that period will be reflected in savings on that Vote. Those are the one or two matters which occurred to me to require some further elucidation, and I trust that after the explanation and undertakings I have given, the House will now be able to see its way to give us this Vote.

Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask the hon. Gentleman a question in order that we may thoroughly understand what it is the Government proposes? As I understand it, what he proposes to do is to subject all pensions granted after to-day to these new conditions, but there have been a considerable number of pensions granted already, on the war bonus principle. Are those pensions to be left untouched?

Sir J. BUTCHER: This particular point was raised in yesterday's Debate. The question was raised as regards pensions which were granted last year,
and the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer), referring to an expression of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury as to "accrued rights," asked,
What does the hon. Member mean by 'accrued rights'? Does he mean that this is money actually received by members of the Civil Service who have taken their pensions?
My hon. Friend said:
Quite so.
He went on to say:
There is no real contention against the point that, in the case of the pensioners who have already got their money, that money must be voted for them for, at any rate, this year, on the ground that their rights have absolutely accrued for this year, and the House will scarcely refuse the money for this year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1922; col. 1798, Vol. 150.]
I understood the meaning of that to be this, that as regards pensions granted last year, those pensions would, just like pensions to be granted in the future, be subject to periodic revision—so far, of course, as the pensions were derived from bonus, but subject to this condition, and this only, that the pensioners would not be asked to return any money they had already received. And as regards future instalments of their pension—that certainly was the opinion of most of us—those pensions would be subject to this periodic revision. I venture to think that that is quite right. Why should they have a permanent pension based on the fluctuating bonus, which may go down very largely, while the person who gets the pension to-day is pensioned subject to a revision? I hope my hon. Friend will make it quite clear that as regards pensions already granted, they will be subject to a revision.

Viscount WOLMER: Is it not the fact that there was a super-cut in the bonus last September, and that those civil servants who retired last August have retired on a much higher pension than those who retired between August and the present date, and that, therefore, if nothing is done to meet the point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), these ex-civil servants will go on enjoying in perpetuity a very much higher pension than those civil servants who now retire?

Mr. YOUNG: I did not realise that there was any doubt about what were my own expressions yesterday. I attempted to make it quite clear, and thought I had clone so, that my suggestion could refer only to pension rights which were not accrued. Pension rights do accrue at the time of retirement. I do not think I can make it too clear to the House that this suggestion of an extension of the change which I propose is one that it is really impossible for the Government to concede without a breach of faith, an unpardonable breach of faith. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Let me put it to the House this way. At the beginning of this financial year the House passed an Estimate voting money for pensions on the basis then laid down. I am quite aware that it will be said by some hon. Members opposite—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why opposite?"]—on either side—by my critics in this House—that that Estimate was passed under the Guillotine and without discussion. As a matter of fact, when the Estimate was passed the House had full cognisance of the fact that this was the basis upon which the pensions were to be granted during the year. It had cognisance of it in a Parliamentary answer to a question on 18th March. The answer was given to my predecessor in my present position, the present President of the Board of Trade, in reply to a question by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean). He said:
The scale of pension is payable on 75 per cent. of the amount of bonus payable at the date of retirement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1921; col. 1987, Vol. 139.]
That is the general principle. Surely it must be clear to the House that that was the offer of a bargain and was held out to civil servants throughout the year, and that civil servants, by retiring during the currency of that Vote of the House, accepted that offer. It is carried out formally and in black and white at every step. When the civil servant comes to retire, the Treasury writes to his Department a formal letter and says:
I am to acquaint you that their lordships have been pleased to award to—an official in your Department, a pension of—.
Then the Department writes formally to the official who retires and says:
I am directed by the Board (the Board of Inland Revenue) to inform you that they
have received a letter from the Lord Commissioner of His Majesty's Treasury stating that their lordships have been pleased to place you on the retired list of the Department with a superannuation allowance of—.
Public faith can be pledged no more directly, and I venture to say that we in this House have also pledged our faith to these arrangements. Let me add only this word. In order to take power to alter the pensions already granted by this formal process it would need an Act of this House. The Treasury have power only to alter a pension, once granted, for specific causes, such as the commission of a felony, and so on. I am indeed anxious, having given my undertaking to this House, to bring this new system into working promptly and smoothly, and I trust that such obstacles as would be raised by this proposal may not be raised now in the way of the Department.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: There is only one aspect of this case which I should like the Government and the House to consider. I understand the proposal is that for the future pensions are to be variable in respect to the amount that is paid on bonus, according to the cost of living; that there is to be in the future a basic pension and a bonus pension, just as there is now a basic wage and a bonus wage; that the basic wage and the basic bonus will remain fixed, but that the bonus wage and the bonus pension will vary. That is what I understand to be the proposal.

Mr. YOUNG indicated assent.

Lord R. CECIL: That is done on the ground that the bonus was given to meet the high cost of living, and that when the cost of living varies the bonus ought to vary. If it was worth so much in commodities at the time it was given, it ought not to be worth more in commodities at any subsequent time. If you keep up the bonus after the cost of commodities go down, you are automatically increasing the amount paid. It seems to me, if that the situation, you ought to apply it to all pensions, however limited, because otherwise what you are saying to the people who have got these pensions is that as the prices go down their bonus is to go up. Then you have two classes of pensioners, one class whose pension will vary according to the cost of living and the other class, in no
respect different, whose pensions will not. That seems very difficult to defend, and likely to produce a good deal of ill-feeling. If the principle is right, it ought to apply all through. I feel as strongly as anybody the necessity for keeping public faith when it has been pledged, but what is the point? You promised those men a pension worth so much in commodities. All you are going to say is: You are not to be better off by reason of the fall in prices.

Viscount WOLMER: Or worse off if the cost of living rises.

Lord R. CECIL: Or worse off by reason of the rise in prices, which, as my Noble Friend suggests, is an important point. This separate class, supposing commodities do go up, will have no increase at all. They will remain at their present figure, however high prices go. The Secretary to the Treasury says that we could not do this without an Act of Parliament. I do not know that that is a very serious matter one way or the other. I should have thought that by an Estimate confirmed in the Appropriation Act we could always do anything that we could do by Act of Parliament, because it is after all an act of the Legislature to have an Estimate confirmed in the Appropriation Act. I think that point is worthy of consideration before the final confirmation by the House of this proposal.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: On a point of Order. The Debate this afternoon is along the same lines as that of yesterday, and on practically the same points. Every speaker so far has been a speaker who spoke yesterday. Others who did not take part yesterday have risen today, but have not yet been called upon.

Mr. SPEAKER: We have not gone very far yet. We have been debating the subject for only a quarter of an hour.

Sir H. CRAIK: As the House knows, I was obliged to take the view yesterday that the Government had made a mistake in regard to the past. It would not be straightforward if I did not say now that I perfectly understand the position taken up by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and that I think it is a consistent and necessary position. I am rather astonished at the views expressed by the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil). It may be said that this can be carried out by an Act of
Parliament and that that is a small thing, but is it a small thing that under the terms of an Act you have pledged yourself to outgoing civil servants in the most formal and solemn terms? The terms upon which pensions are granted are very strict and legal in their elaboration. A retiring civil servant is informed that a certain sum has been assigned to him as a pension. There is no question about reducing that sum according to the price of commodities. That is quite impossible. Apart from that, is the Noble Lord aware that an injunction is passed to the Paymaster-General directing the Paymaster-General on certain terms to make a certain payment. Even if it is not claimed the payment remains in the hands of the Paymaster-General and is part of the estate of the civil servant when he dies. Except by an Act of Parliament there is no power to release the Paymaster-General from the definite orders that have been issued to him, under an Act of Parliament, to pay a certain sum. I agree with the Noble. Lord that too generous terms were made for a short time, but I cannot follow those who think that in regard to civil servants who have already got these unduly generous pensions there should be any receding from the absolute pledge given by the Government—a pledge which, as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has said, can be withdrawn only by an Act of Parliament freeing both the Treasury and the Paymaster-General from the duty that rests upon them.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: I wish to point out to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that the very principle to which exception was taken throughout the Debate yesterday he now proposes to continue with regard to one part of the pension, and he safeguards his position on the ground that it was stated to the House officially by the Government in an answer to a question. As has been said, the vote of this House was taken under the Guillotine. The House had then no opportunity to discuss the reply that was given or the principle that that reply established when the Vote was put before the House. Now, with regard to the pensions that are being paid on the bonuses, he proposes to divide the civil servants into two different sets. One set that already has the pension granted upon a high bonus is to receive that
pension on the high bonus for all time, and the other set is to have the pension varied in accordance with the rise or fall in the cost of living. That is continuing the bad principle with regard to one section and placing them in a very much more favoured position than other pensioners now coming upon a particular salary scale.
Yesterday I tried to take part in this Debate. I wished to make my position clear as did other members of the party to which I belong. One hon. Member stated that he was in no doubt as to the manner in which he would vote, although the Labour party did not vote as a party on the last occasion. I also had no doubt as to the manner in which I should vote. I voted against the Government then, and had not the Financial Secretary to the Treasury agreed to take back this vote last night, in spite of the speeches from the Front Bench of the Labour party I should have gone into the Lobby against the Government again. The policy of the Government is wrong in principle. The result will be that when the cost of living comes back to its original pre-War figure, you will have these pensioners who retired last year in a much better position than those who are to retire when the cost of living has come down. It is not sufficient to say that this House has been pledged by a previous decision. This House was pledged by a decision when it was not allowed to take part in a Debate upon a financial transaction of the Government, at a time when votes were rushed through the House, representing hundreds of millions at a time, and we were not able to discuss the merits of a question. That policy has been carried out by the Government for the past three years, and now they come to the House and say that as Members had allowed the votes to go through in the past they have pledged their faith with civil servants, and cannot draw back.
I do not want to break faith with anyone, but the occupants of the Treasury Bench have placed Members in this awkward position. When the Financial Secretary to the Treasury talks about breaking faith, he should address those remarks to himself and his colleagues for not taking the House into full confidence when originally this money was voted. That process is going on, and we do not
know where we shall land. It is a good thing that the House last night taught the Government a lesson. If hon. Members continue in this way we shall probably get what we want in the way of economy without having recourse to some of the "cuts" that are being recommended by the Geddes Committee. I trust that some way will be found by the Treasury to get us out of the unfortunate position in which the Government have placed Members of the House.

Mr. A. HOPKINSON: The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchen (Lord H. Cecil) pointed to one of the difficulties which must arise from this way of dealing with pensions. It would have been a good thing if he or someone of greater authority than myself went more deeply into the whole principle involved. Surely what the Noble Lord said is simply an example of what must inevitably happen if you endeavour to remunerate people either by wage, salary or pension upon a system which is based on the cost of living, upon the supposition that, certain favoured persons, no matter what happens to others, must preserve a certain definite standard of existence. In essence that means that the productive workers of this country, whose remuneration always depends upon the value of their products, are to be bled, as it were, by these pensioners and by all others who are remunerated on the basis of maintaining their particular standard of living. The productive workers must inevitably be remunerated upon the basis of the ultimate value of what they produce. If they are unable to produce so much as to provide themselves with a standard of living equal to what they have had hitherto, then that standard comes down, but these favoured individuals, who through some pressure upon the Government Departments or upon Members of this House have had their wages and pensions put upon this purely false basis, are to be parasites upon their fellow citizens as long as they live. I protest against this endeavour to found a policy upon such a bottomless morass.

Mr. G. BARNES rose—

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: On a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman who has just risen addressed the House upon this subject last night. I should have
thought that Members who had not previously spoken in the Debate would at least have been given a chance to-day.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will have patience, he will be called.

Mr. BARNES: I shall not detain the hon. and gallant Member or the House for more than a few minutes. I shall vote with the Government. We are faced with two evils, and I shall choose the lesser. On the one side there are evils in the anomalies that will be set up as between one pensioner and another. The man who retired last August will have a much larger pension than the man of equal status who retires now. That is unfair. On the other hand I do not agree with the argument of the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin that the pensioner of last August or of any other time should have his pension based upon the variable cost of commodities. That would get us into never-ending trouble. Has the Noble Lord appreciated to what that would carry him? Some years ago the Government promised 5 per cent. interest on its loans. If you are 10 reduce a pension because the cost of living happens to have come down, the argument is equally valid that you should reduce the interest upon Government loans. It is rather a dangerous argument.

Lord R. CECIL: I do not know whether the right hon. Member is inviting me to repudiate the National Debt or any interest upon it. The interest on the National Debt was never calculated with any reference to the cost of living. The whole point here is that a principle is being introduced with regard to one set of men, and the question is, how far ought you to extend it? There is a good deal to be said in favour of the view of the Government.

Mr. BARNES: I do not say that the Government ever promised interest upon loans according to the cost of living, but if you are not going to stick to a bargain in one case you are weakening the argument for the Government sticking to its bargain in another case. We are faced with two evils. On the one side there is the anomaly to be set up of the pensions of last year as against those of this year. On the other hand, I am going to do nothing to weaken the confidence in the Government to maintain its promises.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: The point to which I wish particularly to refer is the statement made in the speech of the Secretary to the Treasury last night, which, I think, saved the Government from defeat. I feel certain last night that if we had pushed our case, as we ought to have done, we could easily have defeated the Government upon this Motion. It was the statement of the Financial Secretary which caused the cessation of hostilities. He said:
In the first place, there is, I believe—subject to the bigger point—no real contention against the point that, in the case of the pensioners who have already got their money, that money must he voted for them, at any rate this year. … In the second place, I put it quite generally that, for the future, we shall introduce a scheme for making pensions vary with the cost of living by periodical reassessment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1922; col. 1798, Vol. 150.]
There is not the slightest doubt that the opposition last night, which was most determined on both sides of the House, except for just a few, would have placed the Government in a minority, had it not been that we understood that these pensions had been to a very great extent given without the authority of Parliament, and that it was intended to vary, so far as the cost of living was concerned, even those which had been granted under this arrangement. I am most positive about that. This is a most remarkable discussion to me, as a soldier. The pensions of soldiers and sailors are based on a level of 20 per cent. above pre-War, the 20 per cent. to be taken off the moment the cost of living comes down to the normal, or a sufficient proportion to justify any reduction. Therefore, we get this sliding scale applied by the Government to the men who saved the country, who went and fought for the country, but the men who stayed at home, and could work the oracle themselves while the others were fighting, are placed in an absolutely superior position. I say it is most outrageous that in times, when I was mot in the House or in the country, the influence of men who were carrying on the affairs of the State in its civil capacity at home, running none of the risks which the hon. Gentleman opposite himself ran in defence of the State, should be pensioned on a scale so much more favourable than that for the man who risked his life in defence of the
State. For that reason, if there be a Division, I shall certainly vote against the Government.

Colonel Sir J. GREIG: I am afraid my hon. and gallant Friend who has just sat down, and with whom I agree on very many occasions, has allowed his enthusiasm for the soldier and tin sailor, which I share with him, rather to run away with his judgment. I am going to put a point of view which may be unpopular in the House, but I think, in justice to the men concerned, that view ought to be put. Let me make one remark, however, about the suggestion of the Noble Lord opposite. I believe his suggestion would involve a breach of public honour, and I shall, therefore, vote against it, and I am glad the Government is going to vote against it. We may console ourselves, and lay this flattering unction to our souls, that we have paid a tribute at the shrine of economy—at the expense of whom? Of a body of men whose number, being infinitesimal in the vast electorate, is of no consequence to us. At their expense we are suggesting that we are devotees of economy, and the moment after we take this action and attack them, we shall each and all of us turn round, probably, when we come to discuss the Geddes Report, to advocate the claims—some of us have done it already—of a particular section of our constituents who have whips with which they can flagellate us—[An HON. MEMBER: "Speak for yourself!"]. I take the blame with everybody else. Who are these civil servants? There are, I suppose, a few hundreds. I happen to have come into contact with some of the higher ones, and also some of the lower ones, probably some of them men who have been pensioned under this arrangement. When the hon. and gallant Gentleman jeers at them for staying at home—

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not entitled to say that I sneered or jeered at the civil servants. I only called attention to the peculiar treatment meted out to those who were in service at home, in comparison with those who risked their lives in the service of the country on the several fronts.

Sir J. GREIG: Let me tell the House what is within my own knowledge. One man in the service of the country during recent years has practically lost his sight. Has he not done as well as the
man who went to the Front? (An HON. MEMBER: "There ate more than one of them."] I have known men in the Civil Service—and there is no finer service in the world—who for three or four years during the War had not a day's holiday. They were sleeping in their offices in order to be ready to do their work at any moment—not only the higher men but the younger men. I have seen them breaking down because they got no Saturday afternoons for months and months. These men we are dealing with now are the wreckage of the Great War in your Civil Service Departments, and I say it is not fair to attack them as they have been attacked.

Lord R. CECIL: Nobody has attacked them.

Sir J. GREIG: They have been attacked constantly during the Debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—and, in order to bring ourselves into consonance with the general public feeling, we have been sitting here and listening to the puerilities of the Anti-Waste party, and the pontifical platitudes of financial purists. I think we shall all feel better after we have paid this tribute at the shrine of economy. I think these men are worthy of what they have got, and it would be a breach of faith to go behind what we have promised them, and what they ought to get.

Lieut.-Colonel NALL: I wish to say one word in support of the point of view put by the hon. and gallant Member for Stoke (Lieut.-Colonel J. Ward). The hon. Member on the Treasury Bench yesterday told us that these Civil Service pensioners had been informed in black and white what pension they were to have, and he assumed that that could not be in any sense amended; that the pension awarded was one which was legally made, and could not be altered. Here is the Treasury to-day tearing up the very ruling laid down yesterday. When we are told that particular servants of the State had been informed in writing that they were entitled to a pension of a certain amount, and that could not possibly be altered, the hon. Gentleman should have been consistent, because the House knows that time after time we are informed of disabled men who have been told in black and white that their pension would be so much, and they have in fact drawn that money for months, and
then, long after the event, they have been called upon to refund the amount which had been wrongly paid to them. If, as appears to be the case, these civil servants, who were pensioned prior to this alteration in the Government policy, received a pension which was quite obviously wrongly and illegally awarded to them, then it is only fair to say, even if they are allowed to retain the amount already paid to them in respect of past years, that in future that error is to be rectified, and they can only draw according to the new scale.
The only other point I want to emphasise is this. The pensioners who are the cause of this Debate may be a considerable number, but the hon. Gentleman, I think I am right in saying, has not told the House how many are involved, or what is the actual cost involved, and it seems to me that if a number of them were induced to retire, and took advantage of this unduly high, and illegally high, pension, the House should be given the figures in order to consider whether it would be fair to say to some of these who retired long before the age limit: "You must either accept the reduced rate, or go hack to your job." We have no figures before us by which to judge which would cost the country more—to reinstate them in their former job until they can retire at the proper age limit on the lower scale of pension, or whether it would be better to let them off what they have got, and be rid of them. I submit that is a point to be considered; but, in the meantime, it is grossly unfair that these civil servants, splendid as their work may have been, should be allowed to walk off with a pension, which they might draw for 20, or even 30, years, assessed on a basis much higher than is awarded to their successors, and such as has never been admitted in respect of any of those who are entitled to a pension as a result of the War.

Mr. JAMES WILSON: I should like to associate myself with the statement made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury yesterday when he paid the very high tribute he did to those employed in the Civil Service. Despite what was said by hon. Gentlemen opposite I want to assure the House that the opinion of the Financial Secretary is shared by everyone on these benches. I do not think too
high a tribute can be paid to those employed in the Civil Service in this country. I feel quite sure, too, that there is neither intention, nor would there be any justification in any part of the House, for taking any course or doing anything whatsoever that would be unfair to civil servants. But I feel that in respect to the proposal of the Government—possibly it may be because I am new in Parliamentary experience—that there is a different atmosphere in the House to-day than that which existed yesterday. I see no justification for that change, for the Government stand precisely on the same ground in relation to their proposals as they did yesterday afternoon. I believe that those proposals are fundamentally and absolutely wrong in their dealing with the Civil Service as a whole. I have no doubt that the experience of other hon. Members is similar to my own. In my short connection with the constituency I have had innumerable complaints from civil servants who were pensioned in September and October, 1914. They were then allowed to retire. Their complaint is that because of the high prices and the high cost of things in every way their pension, which under normal conditions would have enabled them to live the remainder of their lives under fairly reasonable conditions, is totally inadequate to meet the altered circumstances. No consideration has been extended to them in consequence of the high cost of living and the natural corollary of the decreased purchasing power of their pensions.
We come to another period, 1918. We understand that the Government acted on the recommendation of the Whitley Council which was composed of two sides of Government employés. They made a recommendation that the retiring pension should be continued in perpetuity so far as the recipients were concerned—that is, men retiring in 1918 to 1921. Then we come to another class of civil servants who will be retiring next year and a few years thereafter. By that period we all hope that the cost of living will have receded to something like pre-War conditions, and that bonuses for increased cost of living will have entirely disappeared. Those pensioners who are going to retire in the next five or six years are going to retire on what was normally the pre-War
basis of pension for civil servants. We must bear this in mind, although it is suggested by the Financial Secretary that the pensions paid in 1918–20 are only going to last a few years. Does the hon. Gentleman expect that a pensioner at the age of 60 is automatically going to die because he is receiving a fairly high pension? I hope lots of these people will go on enjoying their pensions for, say, the next 20 years. So that we are not dealing with merely a transient state of things, but with a question which is going to be permanently with us during the next 20 years. During the next 20 years we will have pensions paid to civil servants for services rendered and equal loyalty to the country over the same number of years, and they will be receiving pensions at two or three different rates if the policy at present proposed by the Government is given effect to. You will have your pre-War pensioner who is quite entitled to the same consideration as any civil servant to-day. He will be receiving his pension upon the pre-1914 basis while not a penny piece nor a thought of consideration of the times is ever extended to him. He stands where he did in 1914 so far as the Government proposals are concerned. The period 1917–20 pensioner will be receiving a pension which will ultimately place him in an infinitely better economic position than he was when working in the Civil Service—if the cost of living goes down.
We come to the third class of men: to the man who has to be pensioned off hereafter and has not been lucky enough to be able to squeeze into this lot during the period that the Government are going to pursue this policy of theirs. He will be subjected to a graduated pension. Is it, I ask the House, fair or reasonable, to deal with classes of men who all render equal service to the country, and subject to the same conditions, to a varying method like this? Surely the right thing would be to affirm the general principle of dealing with all men alike and to give them an adequate pension for similar services rendered. I hope, therefore, until the Government are prepared to deal with what I may term the War pensioners on the same basis as they deal with the pre-War and post-War pensioners, we ought not to support the Government. It may be that the pensions of the civil servants, both pre-War and post-War, are far too low, but
that is an entirely different thing. That is not a subject for consideration at the moment. The only point that emerges from this is that we are entitled to insist that all civil servants, for equal services rendered, are entitled to the same consideration at the hands of the nation; and until the Government can evolve a policy which will produce those results, I do not feel that the House will be justified in going into the Lobby in their support.

Mr. LANE-FOX: I went against the Government yesterday, but it does seem to me there is a changed position to-day, and a very different view. The analogy drawn by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite between the soldiers and the civilians does not seem to me to hold good; though I would be the very last person to refuse to acknowledge or to decry the very inadequate pensions which many of our excellent soldiers receive. At any rate, these pensions were given on a different basis. The soldier gets a variable pension, but in this case under review a different bargain has been made. I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite in my dislike to the different classes. Still I do not see how you can depart from the fact that a definite bargain has been made, and once a bargain has been made it is fatal to the credit of the State that it should be dishonoured. They were told this, and if they chose to accept we cannot possibly go back on it, whatever one may think of the policy of the Government in offering that bonus. The pension was founded on it, and whatever you may think now of the pension being altered, what was done was done and we cannot go back. I agree that in the future there will be an anomaly but one can only hope that the Government will be able to evolve some proposal by which this system of pension on salary and bonus will stop, and that we will find after a while that the arrangements made are temporary.

Mr. MOSLEY: I must confess that I interpreted the attitude of the House last night in the same sense as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for York. I thought this concession would be retrospective as well as prospective. I imagined that when the hon. Gentleman referred to accrued rights he meant only the amounts under this pension scheme which were actually due at the moment
to the men who were receiving pensions. The strongest point that I am aware of that the House in the course of this discussion has adduced against the contrary view to the Government is that first advanced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities, and put again by the hon. Member who has immediately preceded me. Their point is that the State has entered into a bargain, into a solemn understanding, with these men whose pensions have already been assessed, and that it would be a breach of national honour and faith to revise those pensions. We have entered into more than one agreement and made more than one bargain which subsequent economic pressure has compelled the Government to reconsider. There was, for instance, the Agriculture Bill—

Lieut.-Colonel ROYDS: That was done by consent of the parties. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no !"]

5.0 P.M.

Mr. MOSLEY: I have been in this House during a good many of these Debates and I have heard a considerable amount of dissent from the representatives of agriculture; but I am not going to pursue these matters except to say that on more than one occasion this Government has been compelled to revise bargains and understandings into which it has entered owing to the changed economic circumstances which were not contemplated at the time of entering into the bargain. Whatever we may say to that, a yet stronger argument remains if this matter is to be considered a question of honour. Was there no bargain, was there no understanding with the men in the Civil Service in regard to their pension rights, the men in respect to whom the hon. Gentleman made such a striking concession? It was said yesterday that these men had a statutory right to have their pensions assessed on a War bonus basis. The hon. Gentleman told us that they were all given to understand, on innumerable occasions, that their emoluments definitely carried a pension calculated to include war bonus. They were supported in that view by the Whitley Council recommendation which was adopted by the Government. All this time there was being ruled out the possibility of the Government ever revising any understanding into which they had entered with those servants on that basis. If so, the Government has been retaining
the services of these men on false pretences. It has kept them in the service on the understanding that their pensions would be assessed according to the war bonus. Now the hon. Gentleman is revising his intention and breaking his bargain. If the argument prevails in one case, the case of the men who have retired already, then it prevails also in the case of the men who remain. The hon. Member has emphasised over and over again, in the course of these Debates, that the obligation upon the Government and the country was binding and stead-fast in regard to the pensionary rights of the men who are now in the Service. If we are never to revise our obligations we have no more right to revise them in regard to the future than in regard to the past! Does the hon. Gentleman suppose that if those men in regard to whom he is now making a concession had known that that concession was going to be made, they would have stayed on and would not have retired two or three years ago when the bonus was high, and when their pension would have been far higher than at the present time, and higher than the pensions will be under the scheme which he has just put before the House? I cannot think that the hon. Gentleman who has just repudiated his bargain with existing civil servants can argue that there is any greater reason for his not repudiating his bargain with the civil servants of the past. The anomaly which is constituted under this concession is even greater than has been commonly grasped in the course of this Debate. It is not even a question of an anomaly being constituted between the men who are retiring to-day and those who will retire in the future. A far greater anomaly is set up with regard to the men who have retired in the past. The man who retired in November, 1920, received his pension when the War bonus was assessed upon an index figure which stood at 170 above the pre-War cost of living, while the man who retires to-day has his pension assessed when the index figure stands at only 88, and the War bonus is assessed upon an index figure just about half what it was in 1920. Already we have this amazing anomaly under this remarkable scheme that the men who retired a little over a year ago have nearly double the pension in respect of that amount of their
pension calculated in regard to bonus as compared with those who may retire to-day. The reason is obvious, because the index figure was twice as high at that time as it is at the present moment. That anomaly exists now, and the hon. Gentleman proposes to aggravate and accentuate that inequality by revising pensions which are assessed in the future, and leaving intact and inviolate the pensions assessed upon this very high index figure a year or more ago.
What is the result? The men who retired a year or two ago when the cost of living was at its highest derived an immense advantage over the men who have gone on in the Service for several years more, who have served their country faithfully in the interval and now retire under the revised scheme proposed by the hon. Gentleman. The reward these men are to get for hanging on during the reconstruction period and serving their country well and faithfully is that they are to be put at a great disadvantage as compared with the men who retired in the comparatively early days. By this plan the hon. Gentleman is putting a premium on scuttling out of the Civil Service. He is rewarding those who retired earlier in the fray and penalising those who stayed longer and served their country well and faithfully. That is the effect of his concession. If any case does rest at all on grounds of honour, then the hon. Gentleman is just as much bound to the present civil servant whose pension rights he proposes to reduce as he is bound to those whose pensions have been assessed in the past. Personally I think he is not so bound in either case and should revise the whole position. He is now constituting an anomaly which traverses every elementary principle of justice and fairness, and he is constituting an inequality which is unfair to the nation and will long be the subject of animosity and recrimination within the Civil Service. If the hon. Member undertakes to revise this gross blunder of administration, I hope his revision will be equal in its incidence and that he will apply it to all who have derived advantage from this mistake of the Government in allowing the War bonus to be calculated in respect of pensionary rights.

Sir COURTENAY WARNER: The last speaker has emphasised the difference between the man who retired a little more than a year ago and the man who will
retire in the future. In another part of his speech he also looked back upon the man who retired before the bonus was given.

Mr. MOSLEY: I did not.

Sir C. WARNER: Well, I do, at any rate. On the previous occasion what we urged was that the principle in future must be stopped. I think the hon. Gentleman opposite is quite wrong in saying that there is no difference, because there was an absolute contract with the men who have retired. It was said by the Government, "If you retire now you will get such and such a pension." They did retire, and that closed the contract. It is quite true that the men who retire in the future will not get the same terms that they were offered then, but they never closed with those terms, and that makes all the difference. They did not take the offer when it was made, and I think it is only fair when an offer has been made and accepted that it should obtain, and when an offer has been made and has not been accepted then there is a very great difference.

Mr. MOSLEY: We retained the services of those men on the ground that their pension would be assessed on a certain basis. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The hon. Gentleman in giving this concession has violated that principle. These men understood their pensions would be assessed in the same way as those immediately preceding, because the right hon. Gentleman interpreted the word "emolument" as covering war bonus, and he told the whole Civil Service that he so interpreted it.

Sir C. WARNER: The hon. Gentleman is now arguing in favour of what he and all of us argued against on the last occasion. We said that this was not part of the emolument. It is not fair to use that argument in favour of your case now. I am quite willing to accept the principle, but, independent of anything else, we have now got the principle that we fought for accepted by the Government. We have an undertaking that in the future they are not going to pursue this principle.

Mr. JAMES WILSON: That is not what you were fighting for yesterday.

Sir C. WARNER: At any rate I am satisfied with that, and it is all the Government can do. They cannot go back on
the contracts they have made with the Civil Service, but they can and they are going to change the system in the future, and if there is a division on this question I shall support the Government on the understanding that the principle in the future has been conceded.

Mr. BRIANT: I cannot be accused of any want of sympathy for the Civil Service because I was a member of that service myself for many years, although I am not in the happy position of having a pension. So far as I know the Civil Service the scheme is that a man receives one-sixtieth of each year's service. That is to say the maximum is forty-sixtieths of his salary. The actual effect will be that a man is getting and can receive two-thirds of his salary as a pension. I believe many of those who retired recently had served their 40 years. What will be the effect of this proposal? If the price of commodities goes down many of those men will be actually receiving a larger pension than any salary they ever received. It will be considerably larger Can anything be more unjust to the vast bulk of the community, most of whom will have no pension when they retire, than that they should actually have to pay in taxes to give a man a considerable amount more in pension that he actually received when he was in full work. No amount of logic or special pleading can possibly recommend that sort of thing to this House and certainly not to the country. I am glad to see that the Government has shown a certain activity of its conscience in this matter.

Mr. YOUNG: I am not sure to what possible circumstances the hon. Member is referring. I know of no circumstances under which a pension will be more than the retiring salary.

Mr. BRIANT: I think I am correct. It is calculated on the amount of bonus now given.

Mr. YOUNG: This wrong impression may have arisen through a little miscalculation by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) during the Debate on the first day of this discussion, but it has since been corrected by the right hon. Gentleman in the course of our discussion yesterday. As a matter of fact under no possible circumstances can that arise.

Mr. BRIANT: At any rate whether that is so or not, a man must be getting considerably more under this arrangement than any pension he could have acquired in any other way or in any other service. He can have 25 per cent. owing to his luck in being among the small strata of pensioners who have retired during this particular period. An enormous number of people with small pensions have the greatest difficulty to live on their pension. They have been receiving these pensions for the last 10 or 15 years. We realise that we are all paying taxes, whether directly or indirectly, and to ask these small pensioners to pay more in taxes on tea and tobacco and other articles, in order to provide £1,000, £500, or £600 a year as a pension, which is more than they could possibly have got under the old scheme, is creating a state of things under which these people have not only a right to grumble but to protest very loudly. I understand the Government now to mean that although we do not wish to recover one penny of the money actually given, this House should not be bound to vote a pension in perpetuity which would place anyone in a favoured position. The Government is bringing forward schemes which will put on the back of the community for the next 20 or 30 years a burden which cannot be admitted by anyone to be sound or just or economical. I hope that even now the Government will see its way to withdraw that part of its suggestion, and that the House will prove by its vote, if necessary, the reality of the protestations made outside.

Commander BELLAIRS: I think there is a tendency for the discussion to range over more topics than it did yesterday, and it is hardly fair to the Government, in view of the extension of time which it gave to the House. The position of the Financial Secretary would have been easier had he answered my question yesterday. I have taken no part in these Debates beyond asking a simple question as to what would be the position of those civil servants who have gone on pension during the current financial year. Had that been answered, there could have been no misinterpretation. I feel that the Government, having given their pledge to these civil servants, is bound by that pledge, and I wanted that to be made clear. One of my hon. and gallant
Friends has spoken of civil servants as having been attacked. There has, however, been no attack upon them. What has been done has been to suggest that they have had an undue and undesirable influence—whether through the Whitley Council or some other method—on the Government of the day. We also contend that this House was never really pledged at all. The Financial Secretary informed us that, in answer to a question by the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean), we were told that civil servants would get 75 per cent. of the war bonus added to their pension. As hundreds of questions are put in this House for every Member to consider, it is difficult to hold that that is pledging the House, especially as we were not able to debate the matter later on, because the Vote fell under the Guillotine. From that point of view I suggest the House never was pledged. The Government, however, having pledged itself, I think I, for one, must support them in the Lobby. The Financial Secretary suggested that it would require an Act of Parliament to annul the pensions already granted. That may be or may not be the case. I do not know how that may be, but I do know that the Treasury have power to take away pensions on convictions for felony, and that that power obtains with regard to the Army and Navy, and is exercised by means of Orders in Council. I think it undesirable that such powers should be exercised by Orders in Council. In such a case, they ought to be confirmed by this House. It should require an Act of Parliament to take away a pension that has been already granted. Even in a case of felony, I hold there is a breach of faith in taking away a pension by means of an Order in Council.

Sir F. BANBURY: I should like to ask the Financial Secretary a question. As I understand it, his argument is that you cannot make this arrangement retrospective because last July, or August, certain Votes were passed by this House, and that the House knew what it was doing because a question had been asked upon the subject. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member who last spoke that the fact that a question has been asked in the House cannot bind the House. We cannot discuss matters by means of question and answer, and therefore I put aside altogether that reason for not making this
arrangement retrospective. The Vote was passed under the Guillotine, and nobody knew what was in it. The House has, however, assented to its own Rules, and it therefore would not be a good argument that, because the Vote was passed, and the House did not know anything about it, therefore arrangements made under it can now be revoked. There is considerable force in what the Financial Secretary said, that the Vote having been passed, no matter how, we are bound by it, even although, according to the Rules of the House, it was an ineffective vote. On the whole, we cannot get out of this. What I want to ask is this: There are a considerable number of pensions which will be affected by this Supplementary Vote. Will they be subject to the new arrangement? If the hon. Gentleman says they will be, I have nothing further to say, but if he states they will not be, then I shall feel it my duty to vote against the Government.

Mr. YOUNG: I tried to make clear when I was speaking what was the intention of the Government. It was that all pensions granted after yesterday, when the decision was come to, should come under the new system. We shall not be able to get the system actually working for some time, and therefore such pensions as are granted will have to be granted provisionally and be subject to the new rules when they come out. So far as this Supplementary Estimate takes money which will be spent on pensions granted between now and the end of the financial year, those pensions will be subject to the new system.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I have no sympathy with any civil servant who took his pension on the war bonus. I think it was a very dirty thing to do towards the State in respect of which he occupied a fiduciary position. The civil servant knew perfectly well that the war bonus was temporary, and was given him to meet the stress of war conditions, and it is a shocking thing to think, while so many people are suffering severe hardships, that these gentlemen should continue to draw a pension until the end of their unnatural lives, on a war bonus granted to them under such conditions. They constitute the only class who have made a big profit out of the War. I wish them joy of their pensions and hope that their lives may be long in the land,
but I repeat it is a shocking state of affairs. I am inclined to agree with the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), however, that they have got away with the swag. We have now to consider the inviolability of contracts, even although those contracts may have been achieved by something in the nature of treachery. Perhaps, however, it is a cheap price to get rid of the type of man who will take his pension on a war bonus which was granted as a temporary measure. It is undesirable to have such persons in the Civil Service. They knew perfectly well that the war bonus was temporary and it was not fair on their part to exact a pension on it from the State at the expense of the community. Their precious Whitley Council is, after all, only a gathering of themselves against the taxpayers. It is not a proper Whitley Council in the ordinary and accepted sense of the term, but as they have got away with the money, I think the Secretary of the Treasury is right when he says that we must begin afresh now. All this House can do is to tell the Government never to let this sort of thing occur again. I hope the day will come when they will take into consideration the whole question of pensions in this country. I do not see why any particular class of the community should be pensioned at the public expense. Why should they not take their chance in life the same as other people?

Mr. NAYLOR: I should not have risen but for the speech to which we have just listened. Evidently the hon. Member has overlooked the striking fact that prices having risen, every civil servant is just as much entitled to expect consideration at the hands of the Treasury in these circumstances as any other body of workers in the country claimed from them employers, and I am surprised any hon. Member of this House should describe the action of civil servants in seeking an equalisation of their salaries by means of a bonus to meet the increased cost of living in the terms the hon. Member has used. As a comparatively new Member of this House, I find myself in a difficult position. It seems to me that the House itself is mainly responsible for the difficult position in which Members on both sides are placed. We want to do the right thing at all times, whether one is called upon to vote for or against the Govern-
ment. The position is this: The Government have pledged themselves to allow a body of men a scale of pensions based on the cost of living at the time the pensions were granted; that is to say, they are to have all the advantages in their pension of the bonus that was granted to them on account of the increased cost of living. I am of opinion it would have been better if the Government had considered at the time some means whereby the principle of applying the bonus to the pension should be made proportionate. The bonus should have been applied to each and every class of civil servant right through the period, so that there should be no complaint on the part of the civil servant that he will suffer by this change of policy on the part of the Government, and at the same time there should be no unfair difference as between one class of civil servant and another.
All civil servants are not on the higher scale of salary. There are other classes of civil servants which, even if they were paid on the proportion of the highest bonus, who would still be receiving pensions by no means above the amount necessary to keep then in decent circumstances of life. Postmen are a class who have been mentioned by the Financial Secretary, and these men, even although they come under this unfair system, get a pension which is by no means high in any sense of the term. On the other hand, we have to ask ourselves whether we are going to support the Government when they tell us they are not able to break a pledge which they have given. I am not in a position to say that I object to that attitude. I cannot give a vote which implies that I am prepared to break a pledge given on behalf of this House to any class of civil servants, and for that reason I feel I ought to be left free in order that the Government pledge, bad though it be, may be kept. I hope that as a result of this discussion, the Secretary of the Treasury will be able to let us have some assurance that there shall be a general reconsideration of the payments that are made by the Vote we are now asked to pass, and that there will be an effort to secure that the pensions paid out of it will be on an equitable basis, and that every class of civil servant in the future shall be paid on exactly the same level.

Mr. YOUNG: May I appeal to the House to come to a decision on this matter? It has been very fully discussed, in the first place in Committee, and, secondly, an opportunity for discussing it was given yesterday on Report, and I think it will be within the recollection of the House that there was something of the nature of an understanding, or shall I say an assumption, that, if the Debate were adjourned yesterday until to-day, in order to give an opportunity for considering what had been said, the House would be able to arrive at a rather more prompt conclusion to-day.

Mr. HAYDAY: Would the hon. Gentleman, before we vote, in view of what was said by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. A. Hopkinson), state what is the composition of the Whitley Council? It has been alleged that it is composed entirely of civil servants, who decide for themselves what their own conditions shall be.

Mr. YOUNG: The composition of the Whitley Council, as at present constituted, is surely very well known. It is published in many documents. It consists of representatives of the staff side and representatives of the official side, and the hon. Member will have heard the announcement made to-day by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to certain changes which are in contemplation.

Major M. WOOD: I do not want to repeat what has been already said, but only to ask one question. It seems to me that the solution of this question must be unsatisfactory whatever we do, and that in the case of some people pledges made to them are going to be broken. At any rate, it seems to me that pledges are going to be broken in the case of those who might have retired last year and did not. They did not retire, and they are going to be penalised for it. Is it not the fact that there are quite a number of civil servants who might have retired last year, and postponed their retirement, at the request of the Government, in order to accommodate them and to accommodate the public service; and are they going to be penalised by the fact that they thus consented to accommodate the Government? I think that that is a substantial point to which we might be given an answer.

Mr. YOUNG: There may be, and no doubt are, civil servants who, from asense of duty and devotion, continued their service at the request of the Government after they had reached the age of 60. There can be no penalisation, however, owing to anything that is now suggested. I think there is a little misconception. Until a civil servant retires there is no understanding or contract with him as to what sort of pension he will get.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I should like to put our position quite clearly. We are perfectly satisfied with the change that the Government propose to make. We think it desirable that, in future, the pension should be on a sliding scale, and that that part of the pension which is due to bonus should vary with the cost of living at the time. That is better than having the pension for all time based on the cost of living at the date of retirement. I must say that I do not think the alteration breaks any pledge or any recommendation of the Whitley Council. It is a toss-up whether that change is going to be better or worse for the civil servant. Whether he be a postman or a highly salaried official, it is an even chance whether this change is going to be better or worse for him. We have certainly no guarantee that the cost of living will not go up again; indeed, if the Government carry on their finance on the lines laid down in the newspapers, and borrow £100,000,000 in order to pay pensions this year, that alone will inevitably depreciate the value of the £ and increase the cost of living in this country. In view of the risk of an increase in the cost of living—

Sir F. BANBURY: When the Labour party come in?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: If the Labour party come in, they will, conduct their finance on sound lines, and not live on borrowed money, or with the aid of the printing press.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is now getting a long way from the Vote.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: That is due to the interruption of the right hon. Baronet. He knows perfectly well that the subject we were approaching is a most important one which ought to be discussed at some time in this House.
The change proposed does not really break any pledge, and, in view of the possibilities, it may be as advantageous for a civil servant who retires as the original scheme. When it comes to asking the Government to break the settlement they have already made with people who have retired under certain conditions to which the Government have been a party, then I personally should support the Government in the conclusion at which they have arrived. The Labour party, of course, not having had the opportunity of discussing this question in detail, will vote as they think fit on the matter. For myself, I shall certainly vote with the Government and for the maintenance of the pledge given by the settlement of the Whitley Council.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: In the case of those men who have already retired, I do not suppose that any Member of this House will want to break the pledges that have been made to them, but I think, first of all, that the whole Debate has shown the extent to which the House lacks financial control, because the original Vote was passed under the Guillotine and there was no opportunity of discussing it. Secondly, the pensioners of the Army and Navy and other forces do not have their pensions based on the cost of living. If that is to be the rule, why should not their pensions also be altered? Surely, sonic more satisfactory method of arranging the pensions of civil servants ought to be found. I do not wish to cut down their pensions or object to them in any way, but I think the method we are going to adopt now is twist cumbrous and not at all satisfactory, and the pensioners themselves will be unable to know what sort of pension they are going to receive.

Mr. G. MURRAY: I should like to ask a question on a point which, I think, has not been touched upon during the Debate, namely, what is going to happen with regard to the lump sum which is paid in addition to the annual pension under the usual pension scheme? As I understand it, part of the pension is paid by an annual allowance and the other portion is paid, when the official retires, in a lump sum; and I understand that that principle has been applied to the bonus system as well as to the ordinary pension system. Would the hon. Gentleman tell us how he proposes to deal with the
lump sum as applied to the bonus system in the case of those officials who have already retired, and of those who will be dealt with under the scheme which he has outlined?

Mr. YOUNG: As I have already pointed out, in the case of those who have already retired we cannot make any change. As to the principle to be adopted in calculating the lump sum part for the future, that is a very elaborate question of actuarial estimation, upon which I am not yet ready to put any definite proposal before the House. I can only say that, with regard to both the pension and the lump sum, my purpose will be so to apply this new alternative scheme that the total non-effective charge for the retiring civil servant shall bear a relation to the cost of living.

Mr. MURRAY: My reason for raising this question is that I am of opinion that, in the case of pensions granted under the bonus system, the lump sum ought to be done away with altogether.

Sir D. MACLEAN: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I think that I ought in fairness to remind the House of what I said yesterday and to state what I propose to do to-day. I said yesterday that I assumed, with regard to money already paid and pensons to which the Government was already committed, that this House would probably do nothing, but that with regard to pensions not yet assessed or awarded, having regard to the Debate which took place yesterday and on a previous occasion, they would be, in legal phraseology, affected by notice, and, therefore, any change of policy adopted by the Government could give no ground of complaint. That point, I am bound to say, has been made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and that was my main position in the House yesterday. Therefore, as far as I am concerned at any rate—and I speak only for myself—the point which I put having been made, and a saving already on this year's Estimates having, as I hope and believe, been effected, as well as a future saving of a very large sum, I do not feel that I should be justified in opposing the Vote which is asked to-day.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

REPORT [20th February].

CIVIL SERVICE AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1921–22.

Order read for further consideration of Fourth Resolution,

REVENUE DFPARTMENTS.

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £150,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Customs and Excise Department."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move to leave out "£150,000," and to insert instead thereof "£149,000."
I move this reduction in order to be in a position to divide without dividing against the whole Vote in case the replies to the questions which I am going to put are not satisfactory. The House will be aware that this Estimate for £150,000 was, by arrangement, not debated in Committee, on the understanding that it would be put down early for discussion on the following day on Report. I desire to ask, first of all, are the Government going to give us an explanation of the expenditure due to these additional retirements? I do not want to cover the ground that has been gone over with reference to the last Vote, nor to deal with the principle of pensions taking in War bonus or anything of that sort, but I want to know briefly from the Government why there have been these additional retirements in the Customs and Excise Department, and why they are called upon, in consequence, to find £177,000. I think it is necessary to get this information, because the Customs and Excise Department is one of the many Government Departments whose expenditure has actually gone up by well over £1,000,000 within the last 12 months. Their Estimate for 1920–21—

Mr. KILEY: They have had a lot more work to do.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am coming to that in a moment. Their Estimate for 1920–21 was, in round figures, £5,543,000, and for 1921–22 it was £6,675,000, showing, therefore, an increase of £1,132,000. That is even after the Government's blows is the air in respect of economy. We are now asked to vote this additional sum of £150,000 for addi-
tional retirements, and I think we ought to have some explanation. Why have these additional retirements taken place? The hon. and gallant Gentleman, answering a question the other day as to delays in the Customs, said there had not been delays in spite of the fact that only a small extra staff had been taken on. Work in the Customs has been enormously increased in volume and complexity by the fiscal legislation of the Government. I do not want to discuss that inane policy. There will be many other opportunities. But the business men, who are the people who know when and where the shoe pinches, are complaining all over the country of the tremendous delays in getting their business through the Customs at present.

Mr. SPEAKER: The opportunity for that does not arise here. This Vote is solely for additional retirements—the same point as the last Vote.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I was going to develop my argument in this way, that the Customs are understaffed. I wish to know why these additional retirements are being permitted, and in particular, whether they are permitted before the proper statutory retiring age in order to get additional pensions. Whether the Customs are understaffed or overstaffed there is great delay, and if those retirements are taking place that may be one of the explanations. In view of the extra work thrown on the Customs I think we should know why these additional retirements were permitted. The second matter I wish to raise is with reference to sub-head A—Appropriations-in-Aid. I see we are allowed £8,000 which is due to repayments by the Inter-Allied Rhineland Army Commission of the salaries, etc., of Customs and Excise officers. Where has this £8,000 come from? Does it come from some other Department? Do the Foreign Office or the League of Nations pay, or who pays it? Customs officials are, apparently, established on the Rhine and they are loaned from the Customs and Excise Department in this country, and their salaries are paid by some unknown body, and we actually put down £8,000 for their salaries as an Appropriation-in-Aid. Is it really a saving? Does it come from some outside source altogether? We know the German Government is not paying it because they
are not even paying for the Army of Occupation. We are not searching their pockets successfully to the tune of £8,000 a year. If it is simply £8,000 from some other Department which will be buried in some obscure Vote and rushed through in the small hours of the morning, according to the usual practice of this Government, we ought to be told, because it is not really a saving. The last question I wish to ask is with regard to the last item on page 50—the repayment from the Government of Northern Ireland under Section 3 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, of £19,000. I do not see any representatives of Northern Ireland here, and I am sorry I cannot congratulate them on at last paying some money to the English Treasury. They owe us plenty, and I am glad this amount is coming in, but I want particularly to ask the Financial Secretary whether this money has actually been collected. Have we got it? Has the money been paid, or is it only a pious hope that it will be forthcoming? I think we are entitled to an answer on these three very simple questions.

Mr. KILEY: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I want to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury a question with regard to pensions which has not hitherto been raised. It escaped my attention on the other Vote, but I think the information is of some very considerable importance to us. It is on Sub-section (2) of the Act of 1909:
The Treasury may grant by way of additional allowance to any such civil servant who retires after having served for not less than two years, in addition to the superannuation allowance, if any, to which he may become entitled or a gratuity which may be granted to him under Section 6, a lump sum equal to one thirtieth of the annual salary and emoluments of his office multiplied by the number of completed years.
The question I want to put is, how much, if any, of the lump sum due under that Sub-section is included in this Supplementary Estimate? It is, of course, in addition to the pension which the civil servant is entitled to, which we have just been discussing.

Viscount WOLMER: Is it not a fact that this additional Vote is required owing to the wholesale retirements that took place from the Civil Service last August?
After the Government had given notice of what was called the "super-cut" in the bonus it became obvious to a great many civil servants that if they retired last August, instead of waiting for the ordinary time of their retirement, they could retire on very much better pensions than if they remained and served for a longer period. I think it is of importance that the House should know and appreciate exactly what has been happening during the last few months. As far as my information goes, this system was allowed to creep up, without the House of Commons properly realising it, under which civil servants could claim a pension partly based on bonus, and it was realised that as the bonus was then coming down it would be to their advantage to retire as quickly as possible, and a great number of our most experienced civil servants seized this very favourable opportunity to retire. The retirements were out of all proportion to what had been calculated by the Government, and this has resulted not only in the State losing the experience and the service of men who might be invaluable at the present moment, but also obliging this House to Vote several hundreds of thousands of pounds, not only on this Estimate but on other Suplementary Estimates, in order to pay for the scramble that took place last August. I shall be very much obliged if the Financial Secretary can tell the House whether that really was the case, because if it was I think it is a scandal that requires to be ventilated.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not quite understand why the last Vote is divided up into superannuation allowances and additional allowances, whereas in this Vote it is all lumped together under superannuation and other effective charges. In looking at the Estimate it is quite impossible to see how much is to be allocated to superannuation allowances and how much is to be allocated to additional allowances. I have no doubt my hon. Friend will be able to tell us. The point I rose to make is this: In the Debate the other day he told us the Government had not called in a Government Actuary to consider the question of pensions which are based on the allowances. It seems to me strange that we should have a Government Actuary, a very able man, who is paid a very high salary, quite properly, with a Department, and that the Treasury should not
have called him in on this very important question. The Geddes Report points out that on the question of teachers' superannuation allowance the Minister of Education never called in the Government Actuary.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): The question of teachers' superannuation allowances had been under the consideration of the Board for five years. We had recourse to the best Actuarial experience. We had an immense mass of Actuarial information in the office. When our inquiries began the office of Government Actuary had not been established, and the question of what was the ultimate cost of teachers' superannuation would have been a perfectly futile question to address to the Government Actuary, because the ultimate cost of the Teachers' Superannuation Act would depend on two factors which could not be estimated, first of all, the ultimate salaries of teachers, and secondly, the ultimate number of teachers. What was the use of asking the Government Actuary what the estimate of ultimate cost would be? I gave the House the estimated cost for the next 10 years on the assumption that the salaries and the number of teachers remained constant, but I warned the House that those two factors were variable, and I could not give a closer estimate. If the Geddes Report creates the impression either that the then Chancellor of the Exchequer or I have not taken sufficient pains to frame a financial estimate as to the cost, that impression is wrong.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: After all, the public is rather at a disadvantage. It has this Report, and until some reply is made it is impossible to say really what the rights are on the other side.

Mr. FISHER: I am grateful to the hon. Member for having given me the opportunity.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I would also point out that the Police Bill was introduced last year—not five years ago—and the Government Actuary was not called in then to discuss the very complicated actuarial questions which arose. My hon. and gallant Friend told us a moment ago that these questions of pensions need the most intricate acturial investigation.
Why on earth did not he call in the Government Actuary? Will he make a rule in future that when the allowances are given, as pensions are dependent on these allowances, the Government Actuary is called in to give some kind of idea what the capital cost is?

6.0 P.M.

Sir F. BANBURY: I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised this question, because he has drawn attention to the fact that while the Financial Secretary to the Treasury realises the importance of actuarial valuations, the President of the Board of Education thinks nothing of them, and prefers to give to the House his own opinion of what the result would be. I think he describes them as "fancy opinions."

Mr. FISHER: I gave no such description.

Sir F. BANBURY: Perhaps I may call the right hon. Gentleman's opinion a fancy opinion. I asked him what the cost of the Education Act would be and be said £10,000,000.

Mr. FISHER rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: The President of the Board of Education has given his explanation. The matter is not entirely relevant to this Debate.

Sir F. BANBURY: The relevancy was that my right hon. Friend said he had not had an actuarial valuation.

Mr. FISHER: I said quite to the contrary. I said that we had an immense amount of actuarial information at the disposal of the Board of Education, but I did not ask the Government Actuary what the ultimate cost would be because the ultimate cost would depend upon two factors which could not be estimated, the number of teachers 40 years hence, and the salaries of those teachers.

Sir F. BANBURY: What we wanted to get at was the ultimate cost. It is no use having an actuary if you do not ask him a question which he is there to answer. The right hon. Gentleman's Department is not different from any other Department which has superannuation funds. Nobody knows what the salary is going to be 40 years hence; nobody knows what the salary is going
to be 10 years hence. We do not know whether my right hon. Friend will be on that bench in a year's time; but that is no reason for not having an actuarial valuation. This is only another example of the extravagance of the Government. The real reason why my right hon. Friend did not have an actuarial valuation was because he thought it would perhaps be so great that this House and the public might turn against the proposal. Therefore, he thought he would give his opinion as to what would be the ultimate cost. We owe a debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. G Locker-Lampson) for having raised this question and exposed the extravagance and reckless habits of the Government.

Mr. YOUNG: This Estimate covers precisely the same ground and involves the same principles as our recent discussion. The hon. Member for Central Hull (Lieut. Commander Kenworthy) and the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) in substance invited a renewal of a discussion we had already had.

Viscount WOLMER: I only asked for facts.

Mr. YOUNG: Let me deal with what is relevant to this Estimate. Generally speaking, the cause of the excess is additional retirements, and those additional retirements have to be looked upon as part of the working out of schemes of reduction of staff, which reductions were made possible and facilitated enormously, without compulsory retirement, by the fact that senior servants were willing to retire in view of the bonus scheme. The hon. Member for Central Hull asks me as to the Appropriations-in-aid. In regard to the Appropriation-in-aid of £8,000, he states that whoever pays it, the German Government does not. He has missed the bull's eye at the first shot. It is precisely the German Government that will pay the £8,000.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It has not paid it yet.

Mr. YOUNG: It will, or has. Very probably it has. If it has not repaid this instalment, it will have repaid previous instalments, and will repay this in due course. There is cash coming in in the form of marks, through the Inter-Allied
Rhineland High Commission, more than adequate to discharge such a charge as this. As to the repayments from the Government of Northern Ireland, that is in regard to agency services performed under Section 63 of the Government of Ireland Act by the Customs on behalf of the Government of Northern Ireland. Whether the sum has actually been paid or not, I think I can assure the House that, without any doubt, the Government of Northern Ireland will discharge its debts. In reply to the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean), I would point out that the amount of the lump sum contained in this Estimate is £150,000 as a non-recurring item in the £177,000. The big sum falls in the first year through there having been the additional retirements this year. As regards the question put by the hon. Member for Wood Green respecting the form of the Estimate and why it does not show the difference between the recurring charge and the lump sum, whereas the former Estimate did, the first answer is the very unsatisfactory one that it always has been so for many years. I believe the actual reason is that the original Estimate for Customs and Excise contains very many sub heads, and probably those who were making the form of the Estimate thought it was better not to multiply the subheads more than was necessary while under the Civil Service Superannuation subhead there are only a few subheads, and there is not so much reason why the extra ones should not come in.
The hon. Member for Wood Green also inquired about the actuarial calculations, and he has caught me out in what I must admit must be a rhetorical use of the word "actuarial." We are well aware at the Treasury of the essential nature of the actuarial calculations, and I do not hesitate to give the assurance that wherever essential information can be obtained from such expert advice it will be taken.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: With regard to item of £8,000, the Financial Secretary has told us that it is a payment by the German Government. When did the payments start? I have the original Estimates here for this year and I cannot trace any such item. Therefore, they must have
started some time between the presentation of the original Estimate and the present time.

Mr. YOUNG: I cannot give the actual date of the payments at the moment, but they may have been made in such a period as that to which my hon. Friend refers.

Question, "That £150,000 stand part of the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

REPORT [21st February].

Resolution reported,

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPART- MENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1921–22.

CLASS II.

1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for meeting the Deficiency of Income from Fees, etc., for the requirements of the Board of Trade, under the Bankruptcy Act, 1914."
2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £601,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments, including certain Services arising out of the War and Grants-in-Aid."

First Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. MOSLEY: Can we be informed whether or not the fees paid to these country receivers include War bonus? I understand the War bonus is allocated to these country receivers, and that impresses me as a very remarkable transaction. The House is aware that these country receivers are in most cases not Government officials but private lawyers, who are employed by the Government on a commission or fee basis. To pay War bonus to lawyers who are employed on a purely commission basis by the Government seems to me to be altogether unjustifiable. War bonus is an allowance in respect of the cost of living, an allowance made, whether rightly or wrongly, to
permanent civil servants to enable them to meet the obligations of a period of great economic difficulty and stress. To apply that War bonus to men who are not permanent civil servants but ordinary practising lawyers, employed on occasion by the Government on a commission basis, is a procedure which cannot possibly be justified. Does the hon. Member representing the Board of Trade know of any case of a private individual employing a lawyer who pays him a War bonus, who gives him a little tip in consideration of the difficulties of the times, and empties his pockets in compassion for the poor lawyer in order that he may be remunerated over and above his current scale of charges? What conceivable justification does the Government give for this most extraordinary transaction? I do not know how long it has been continued. I have never heard any argument in justification of it. I imagine that this Estimate does actually contain money so paid as a War bonus, and I would like the hon. Gentleman to say whether that is a fact, and if so to justify such an extraordinary transaction.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): Perhaps it would save time if I say at once that I am wholly unable to identify any single item by way of fees paid to receivers which corresponds in any degree with War boons.

Mr. MOSLEY: In the original Estimate the hon. Gentleman will find that War bonus was paid. I should like to know—

Mr. SPEAKER: I thought the hon. Member had finished.

Mr. MOSLEY: I saw that the hon. Member wanted to interrupt me and I sat down. He said that it might save time—presumably time which I might occupy in making a speech—if he intervened, and I, accordingly, gave way. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the original Estimate, as I did this morning, he will find that War bonus was allocated to these gentlemen. I would be obliged if he would say whether War bonus is actually included in the amount which we are now invited to vote, and, if so, whether he will justify it.

Mr. FRANCE: The right hon. Gentleman who is responsible for this increase in the Estimates apparently is the Postmaster-General, because if he looks at the Vote, he will see a saving, which is perfectly legitimate, in stationery and printing, as the charges naturally have come down with other charges. Had that been allowed to operate, there would have been no Supplementary Estimate, but the charge for postage has gone up from £1,400 to £3,000, so that the enemy of this Department is the Postmaster-General, who sits apparently in amity alongside the President of the Board of Trade, who is responsible for this Department. The President of the Board of Trade should consider how much his Department has been damaged by the excessive charges for postage, which are so important to the business community, and join with the business interests in appealing to the Postmaster-General to reduce speedily the very heavy and ridiculous charges, so that the Board of Trade will not have to come to the House of Commons to make up the deficiency caused by turning what was a profit into a loss.

Mr. HOGGE: If the Parliamentary Secretary will look at Sub-section D in the original Estimates, dealing with County Receivers who are paid by fees, he will find an estimated amount of bonus totalling £4,500. Personally, I do not know the merits of the question, but obviously my right hon. Friend must either be misinformed or has not noticed the point, and therefore has not replied to the point raised by the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley). If he looks further up to Sub-section C, he will see that bonus is treated there also, but that does not come into the Supplementary Estimate. But the bonus does come into that which is included in the estimate. The point was raised yesterday, and we have not had a sufficient explanation yet. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the increased sum for postage and the increase of £9,000 for stationery and printing. Yesterday we got some figures from mon hon. Friend opposite, in which he proved to the House that the most substantial business in which the Government had been engaged during the past year was in making people bankrupt, that instead of the 1,500 they bankrupted last year, some 3,500 have been bankrupted this year by the efforts of the Government.
That is an increase of slightly over 100 per cent., and it is the one successful piece of work on which we can congratulate the Government, though it has taken more than twice the amount of money to do twice the amount of business. But if we look further into these figures as to the increased cost of stationery and printing, they cannot be explained by a rise in prices, because everybody connected with these trades knows that the price of paper has fortunately gone down, and the price of printing also, and, when we are attempting to save money on those estimates, we ought to get an explanation as to this particular item. There is no explanation given except that the increase in stationery and printing is due to the great increase in the bankruptcy business. I did not know that that was a profession at all. Apparently the Government do go in for a business in bankruptcy. I see that they practically include the cost of supplying London Gazettes. Evidently the circulation of this popular paper among bankrupts has gone up from 6,000 to 15,000. While we are all willing to congratulate the Government on its one successful Department, we want to know the details of the increase in expenditure.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: In answer to the question put by my hon. Friend opposite as to Subhead D, I cannot add anything more than I said last night. I then stated simply the facts. The facts are that, owing to the large increase in what the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) calls bankruptcy business in the number of bankruptcies, there has been a consequent large increase in the amount of printing work. That accounts for a considerable amount of the £9,000. Taking the arithmetical relation which the hon. Gentleman drew between the increase in the number of bankruptcies, 120 per cent., and the increase in this particular item, 150 per cent., the balance, 30 per cent., is accounted for by the other items, increase in Stationery Office account, and increase in local printing rates.

Mr. FRANCE: Does my hon. Friend mean that the charge of the Stationery Office for printing is higher than it was?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I mean exactly what I say. The Stationery Office charges with regard to certain bankruptcy matters have risen unex-
pectedly during the course of the year, or rather we underestimated the number of bankrupts, and we have had to incur more expenditure than we expected in the printing of documents. In answer to the question of the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) with regard to war bonus, the misapprehension has arisen, I think, from the fact that there are country receivers who are actually paid by fees and commission, and in their case there is no suggestion that they should draw a war bonus; but in the category of country receivers there is a certain number who are paid by salary and not by fees, and these people follow the ordinary practice of the service and draw war bonus.

Sir R. COOPER: In a sense this may be a comparatively small matter, but it does seem to me important that we should have a little more explicit knowledge as to what the increase in printing and stationery is actually due to. This is only one of many items, involving an expenditure of £5,000,000 or £6,000,000. Is it a fact that this item has been increased by increased charges, either in country receivers who are actually paid by fees and commission, and in their case I suggest that the matter ought not to be allowed to rest where it is, and that the hon. Gentleman ought to make careful inquiry, because I suggest to him that there is not any increase in local printing rates in any part of the country, and that there ought not to be any increase, if that is so, in the rates charged by the Stationery Office.

Question put, and agreed to.

Second Resolution read a Second time.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move to leave out "£601,200," and to insert instead thereof "£600,200."
I move this reduction because of the lack of reply by the President of the Board of Trade to certain questions which were put to him last night. I am not dealing with the questions on which he begged privilege, about price, and so on, which, he said, would interfere with the closing or alteration of the contract in force for the purchase of Australian spelter. But certain questions were put which would not have affected that side of the business, and which called for an answer. First, who signed the final contracts? We were told that these negotiations began towards the end of 1916, and that
the contract was signed in 1917 and 1918. But the whole thing is and always has been very vague. Information was dealt out to us in a parsimonious manner. An attempt was made by the Government to foist this business on to Mr. Runciman. That is a sign that they are in a tight place. Whenever there is some murky patch in their war time finance, an attempt is made to attribute it to Mr. Runciman's agreement with the railways and so on. The other sure sign of something wrong is that they bring in the Paris Resolutions. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade trotted out the Paris Resolutions, which have become a sort of forged marriage lines for Coaliton Liberals, always brought out to make them appear to be honest people. Who concluded the final contract? Was it Mr. Runciman, or some successor in the Government that overthrew and succeeded that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith)? This matter is always being brought up and misrepresented to the public. I know that the President of the Board of Trade does not want to lend himself to misrepresentations by certain unscrupulous agents of his colleagues in the Government in the country, who set out to blacken the characters of the men who bore the early days of the War, not altogether without honour. Therefore I think it is due to us to get an answer to that question.
Another question which was not answered last night dealt with a very interesting subject, namely, the capital sum of £500,000 which was put into some factory at Avonmouth for making zinc concentrates or turning spelter into whatever spelter is turned into. I am not an expert and I do not pretend to have any technical knowledge, but I do know that this sum of £500,000 should be accounted for. It was put into this factory at Avonmouth which is, I think, somewhere in Wales. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] In any case the whole contract appears to have been a Welsh contract from beginning to end. I gather it was made by Welshmen on both sides. I am not, however, bringing any charge in regard to that; my present charge is only one of reticence as to the truth. This £500,000 I am informed and believe, on the good authority of people in the trade, was put into this factory at some period. What has happened to that factory and to the
£500,000? Who has got away with the "boodle?" This matter has never been discussed and this is practically a new service and we are entitled to an answer. I hope the right hon. Gentleman is not going to ride off on the excuse that because it is not mentioned in the Vote he will not answer any questions about it. It is because it is not mentioned in the Vote that we have a right to drag it out of him on the Floor of the House and to get an answer to the question as to when sanction was obtained for this.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Is the hon. and gallant Member entitled to discuss this question of the £500,000 for Avonmouth, when it is not in the Vote at all?

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: Before Mr. Speaker gives his ruling, may I ask, is it not in order for my hon. and gallant Friend to discuss this, because this Vote is also for "Expenses incidental thereto," that is, incidental to the Australian contract. The cost of Avonmouth is part of the Australian contract. Had there been no contract there would have been no Avonmouth.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I also draw attention to the fact that in last night's Debate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, when introducing the Vote, pleaded for some latitude. This has never been discussed in the House, and is a very large sum of money. I think we are entitled to ask for answers to questions which were put with the consent of the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is quite entitled to ask whether there is any consequential expenditure, in addition to what is shown in this Vote relating to the same subject. It would follow, of course, that if there be a sum of money which will appear somewhere else, in some other Vote, he should not go into the question in detail. As far as this question is concerned, I think the hon. and gallant Member is in order so far.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I do not wish to get out of order, but, it is quite easy to keep within order on this Vote and draw attention to some very peculiar transactions. What has happened to this £500,000? Is it totally lost or will there be some final account
to write off against future losses on our zinc purchases? In addition to the two questions which I have mentioned, there were two other points which were not sufficiently stressed last night. The President of the Board of Trade, we are told, is exploring the situation. It is admitted we have got a bargain which is nut turning out very profitable, and he is going to attempt to get some relief for the British taxpayer. It must be remembered that during the time when this loss was incurred there was a prolonged strike in the Australian mines, and the production went down very considerably—I believe as much as 50 per cent. It is quite, possible within a year, when the dispute is settled in Australia, and the output has gone up again, that we may be asked not for £600,000 but for a million or more. That being the case, I understand the right hon. Gentleman is going to approach this matter to see if he cannot get some arrangement made, either by paying a capital sum to get out of the contract, or some other amicable arrangement.
I am not suggesting that we should break any contract with the Australian Government or with the zinc producers, but I wish to point out that the reason we made this arrangement was a patriotic reason. We were told it was our duty to capture, German trade. It was all put on the highest plane of patriotism. When we have lost heavily and when we find ourselves burdened with an immense annual sum, are we not entitled to appeal once more on the high plane of patriotism? Are things so different in 1922 to what they were in 1917 when this contract was entered into? Since it was done for purely patriotic reasons and since Mr. Hughes was, as we have every reason to believe, doing this simply to assist this country and to assist the prosecution of the War, cannot the right hon. Gentleman appeal to him on the same ground, to come to some decent arrangement to relieve the British taxpayer? If not, we shall pay, but we shall know what value to attach to these protestations of super-patriotism in the future. Nobody more than myself wishes for the closest and most amicable arrangements with our kin in Australasia, but if we are still bound to this contract to our great loss and hurt, I would ask is it true that we are not insisting on the payment of interest on
the Australian debt at the present moment? I do not say we should do so. The whole financial world is out of joint, but it is an extraordinary thing if we are going to be allowed to pay this enormous and increasing sum—

Sir F. YOUNG: The Australian interest is being paid.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Very possibly. I was not quite certain about that. If the hon. Gentleman says so I accept it as far as the interest is concerned, but what of the debt itself?

Sir F. YOUNG: It has all been arranged under a Sinking Fund arrangement made last year.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Then I should have thought that this heavy payment might help to a rather more expeditious arrangement. However, that, is not a matter into which I wish to go too closely. This contract was entered into, in the fervour of wartime excitement, like the phosphates contract and many other contracts with the Australian Government. We are quite entitled to remind them of the spirit in which this contract was entered into, and to ask for some relief. We find ourselves in the impasse that we are forced to take the output of the Australian mines even though it means throwing our own people out of work in this country, closing down zinc and lead mines in this country, and causing great loss to the British taxpayer. When we find ourselves in that position we are entitled to consider the fact—which the right. hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well—that this was part of the policy of injuring German trade after the War. It was part of the war after the War. Surely to goodness this one more example ought to show even to hon. Members on the other side of the House that these attempts are only boomerangs which hit back at our own people. This is only one of many examples which we have had in the last two or three years. The Germans did a good business in this way, and we determined to take it away, and it is costing us dear. It proves once more that if you injure German trade you are injuring trade itself, and if you injure trade itself you injure British trade. The men who are out of work and the ruined mine owners in this country and the British taxpayer will take some poor consolation in the fact that at last we
are beginning to understand that the whole policy of injuring trade only boomerangs back and hurts our own people every time. This particular case of the Australian spelter should be brought home to the people of this country. They are beginning to understand it, and I wish to goodness hon. Members opposite were as far advanced in their understanding of this matter as the ordinary workman in the street or out of employment to-day.

Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to second the Amendment.
Yesterday I asked my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade whether the dates given on page 7 of the Estimate were correct. He told me they were correct. As far as I can understand what has taken place is this: Somewhere about the year 1916, or a little earlier, a company in Australia had a contract with the Germans. Mr. Hughes, I understand, said he would not break that contract with the Germans unless a contract was made with this private company by our Government to take their goods. I would point out that, if this is true, it was extremely unpatriotic and quite wrong on the part of Mr. Hughes to say he would not break the contract with the enemy. I do not quite see how it was possible to make or carry on a contract with the enemy at the time, but the Government apparently entered into negotiations with a view to coming to an agreement with this private company. I do not want to question the conduct of the Australians, but it would seem that it was not very patriotic if this is the case. The negotiations took place, and I agree that it was necessary to come to some arrangement to get this particular product, which was most essential to carrying on the War, but those negotiations did not come to a head until the 23rd April, 1917. On that date, of course, the present Government were in power, and no contract was signed until then. Therefore the present Government are responsible for entering into the contract. There is no use in saying there were negotiations before. That has got nothing to do with it. They could have been broken off or cancelled up to the actual signing of the contract.
Having admitted that under the circumstances it was necessary for the Government to come to some sort of
arrangement, may I point out that April, 1917, was not very far off the conclusion of the War, and therefore what was the necessity for making an agreement, not for the duration of the War, but until 1930? I can understand the Australian company saying: "We will break our contract with the Germans if you will secure that we do not lose any money by it," and I can understand the Government, as they were in an awkward position, agreeing to that, but I cannot understand how any company could have asked, or any Government agreed, to continue this contract until 1930. It seems to me perfectly incredible that such a thing should have been done. I believe the facts that I have narrated are correct, and therefore, if we are going to blame anybody, the persons to blame are the present Government for having entered into an improvident contract for such a very long period.
Whether or not it is advisable to get out of this bargain, I cannot say. My experience of business leads me to be of the opinion that as a rule it is not well to get out of a contract when prices are low. The public have a habit of buying things when they are high and selling when they are low, but that is quite a wrong way to do, and if there is a large fall in the price of these particular articles, though I very much deprecate the Government entering into business—and I do not blame this Government for not carrying on business in a profitable manner, as I do not believe any Government can carry on a private business—if they can get out, that being the fact, perhaps it would be better that they should do so; but, speaking with regard to ordinary commercial transactions, it is, I think, a mistake to sell your property, or your business, or your undertaking when prices are extremely low. I only rose because, if the facts are as I have narrated them—and I believe they are—the attention of the country ought to be drawn to the very improvident and extravagant manner in which the Government entered into this contract.

Mr. WIGNALL: I was deprived of the privilege of seconding the Amendment by the right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), but we welcome him into our ranks, although in my view he is one of the villains of the play, because he was here at the time when
the contract was entered into, and if that contract escaped the lynx eye of the right hon. Baronet and was allowed to go through without his knowledge, and without his demanding that it should be placed on the Table, I think he failed in his duty on that occasion, and the responsibility is largely his.

Sir F. BANBURY: The contract was signed during the War, and it was quite impossible for any ordinary Member to interfere. The Government never submitted these contracts to the House.

Mr. WIGNALL: I thought I would get the right hon. Baronet on his feet. The ordinary man in the street knew at the time that this contract was being entered into, and the newspapers reported that such a contract was being made. I was myself a man in the street at that time, as I was not then a Member of this House, and I knew about it, but my difficulty was to know the particulars of the contract. We only had our information from a very vague report in the daily Press. I am sure the right hon. Baronet and his colleagues would be reading the newspapers at that time, and would certainly have heard something about some contract of this nature that the Government had entered into, and I wonder that he did not demand fuller particulars regarding it.

Sir F. BANBURY: It would have been out of order.

Mr. WIGNALL: The right hon. Baronet ought to have been out of order a good many times then.

Mr. HOGGE: Why out of order?

Sir F. BANBURY: Because there was no Vote. There was only a Token Vote

Mr. WIGNALL: The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) spoke about works for £500,000. I can only say that Avonmouth is in England, and that it is falling to pieces like the Coalition Government itself. Turning to a more serious aspect of the question, it occurs to me that there must be two contracts existing, or else the provisions of the two are embodied in the one, because I understood that the contract entered into between the British Government and the representatives of the Australian people was to accept delivery of these concen-
trates. The concentrates are the mineral, as I said last night, that comes out of the mines, being separated and made ready for conversion into spelter, and in these Supplementary Estimates there is a claim of £249,400 to make good the loss on the zinc concentrates. Then there is £52,500 for spelter, and it says under sub-head Q12:
Provision to cover the estimated cost to His Majesty's Government of spelter which the Government may be required to take at market prices during 1921–22 under a contract entered into on 23rd April, 1917.
That appears to me to be a distinct and separate contract from that under which you are compelled to accept the delivery of the 250,000 tons per annum of the zinc concentrates. The answer given last night, about the erection of the works in Australia, was that it was talked about but that it had never materialised. I want to know whether the item Q12, "Australian Spelter," is a separate contract, and, if so, is the acceptance of the delivery of the spelter the spelter that is manufactured out of the zinc concentrates that are delivered by the Australian mines? If that is so, how much is deducted out of the 250,000 tons which you are compelled to accept, making it a lesser quantity on account of the amount of spelter that you receive? It takes approximately 2½ tons of concentrates, with other mixtures, to make I ton of spelter. The President of the Board of Trade knows whether I am right or not, because he is an old hand at the business, and I am speaking of things that the right hon. Gentleman and I know something about, so that if this amount of spelter that you have had to take delivery of is manufactured out of the concentrates that come out of the Broken Hill mines, are you getting a proportionate reduction for the amount that is used in the manufacture of this huge quantity of spelter that costs this huge sum of money? If this is manufactured out of the zinc concentrates which is embodied in your contract, are you getting credit for that amount? If you are, you should get a very considerable reduction. If not, is it a distinct and separate contract that binds you to accept the spelter?
7.0 P.M.
It is only this week that one of the spelter works in South Wales has commenced working after 21 months of idleness, and for nearly 10 months the whole
of the spelter trade has been closed down, and not an ounce has been manufactured. In fact, it was last November when the first furnace was lighted, and there was not a very good result even from that. Now if this spelter is not embodied in the contract for the zinc concentrates, why enter into a separate contract to accept their spelter again in addition to the concentrates, because that makes the trouble very much greater? In the absence of the exact contract, we are beating about in the dark and seeking for information which we ought to have had before us. We know the market price of spelter, and we know perfectly well that when this contract was entered into spelter was selling at a market rate of about £55 ton, and it went up to £60. To-day it is down to £25 or £26 a ton. If your contract then was to take that spelter at £50 a ton, we will say, and you have got to sell it to-day to the manufacturers in the galvanising and other trades at the market price of £25 a ton, that accounts for the loss of the £52,500 mentioned in the Estimates. I should like to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has entered into a distinct contract for the supply of spelter, what are the terms of that contract, what are the prices he agreed to pay, for how long is it, and what is the quantity he has got to accept. I said last night—and it has not been contradicted—that you are bound to accept 250,000 tons per annum of the concentrates, and the option to take more, which you will never exercise. How many thousands of tons of spelter have you got to take? What obligations are you under so far as spelter is concerned? If you have got to take it in the same proportion, then the loss is that much greater, and the outlook is very much more tragic than I thought it was before. The spelter trade in this country is an important industry, and if you have got to take the same proportion of spelter from the Australian makers as you have been taking in the past, and if you are under an obligation to accept delivery, that means that the whole of the spelter trade of this country is doomed for the next ten years. It was said last night that it was for a very limited time, and that under special conditions we were selling this ore to the Welsh makers for the manufacture of spelter. If you have to accept delivery—

Mr. SPEAKER: I would point out to the hon. Member that he is repeating his own argument. He has already said the same thing three or four times.

Mr. WIGNALL: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I was trying to emphasise, perhaps a little more than I ought, the importance of this contract to the trade. I feel very strongly on this matter, because I am in touch with the men, I live with them, and I know the sorrows of those who are affected by the contract. Although the taxpayer is badly hit as a result of the enormous amount he has to pay, yet the position of the man who has lost his occupation and means of livelihood, and who has a big black outlook before him for nine years is to me appalling. Perhaps my feelings have carried me away a little more than they ought under the circumstances. I only desire, and I have said it often enough to impress it upon his mind, that the President of the Board of Trade should give us a complete and definite answer to the question whether the Government have got to accept delivery, so that we may see to what extent it will affect the spelter trade in the future.
There is another question I wish to ask, upon which I did not get any clear information last night. Is it or is it not the fact that cargoes of the concentrates are being delivered and have been delivered at Antwerp and other ports for manufacture in other countries? There are a great many rumours about that a good many of these cargoes have found their way into Germany. I do not want to magnify this beyond saying that I do not know from whence the Germans can get their zinc concentrates unless they get them out of this deal, or from what other country they can receive supplies. I simply want to know if these cargoes are being diverted, and if spelter is being manufactured from these concentrates in Germany and put on the market in this country at a cheap rate at the present time. I have emphasised these points quite sufficiently, and I hope we shall get a very clear and explicit reply in order to remove any misapprehension that may be in our minds as to the exact position of the spelter trade as a result of this contract.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: I rise to ask the President of the Board of Trade a question which I put to him last night,
and to which in his very full answer he did not reply. What commitments have the Government entered into with regard to the transport of the concentrates from Australia to this country? Are they at liberty to cut their loss in Australia, or have they entered into long-dated contracts for the conveyance of the metal to this country, thereby compelling them to carry on their business further than merely receiving the concentrates in Australia? I cannot help thinking that they had better cut their loss as quickly as they can on the other side, and that they had better sell the concentrates to the trade for delivery free on board at the Australian ports in a similar way to that in which they have bought it from the Australian producers. With regard to the contract itself, I am of opinion that the Government of Great Britain has entered into a contract and that that contract must be carried out. I would rather the Government should stand to it at a loss than that they should repudiate their contract. I believe the proper method is to approach the Australian Government to see whether some arrangement cannot be made by which the contract could be cancelled on payment of reasonable and fair compensation. If that could be done our Government had far better get out of this contract. If possible, some arrangement might be made with the Australian Government by which our Government, in consideration of paying compensation to the Australian producers, should retain a call on the production of Australia in case of need; but I am quite certain that the Government had better give up the merchanting business of this material.
It was common knowledge that before the War the Germans were paying £2 a ton free on board in Australia for these concentrates, and to-day they are being sold in Antwerp at 75s. a ton delivered in Antwerp. If they are sold at that price, delivered, and if our Government are paying a freight of 50s. and large commissions on top of that, they must be making a very substantial loss and the sooner they wind up that branch of their business the better. This is an unfortunate contract. I do not think any good purpose can be served by harping back on it, but I beg of the Government not to dishonour the signature which is under that contract and not to attempt to take
advantage of any such thing as a strike in the Australian mines No doubt there would be clauses in the contract to provide for strikes and lock-outs, and so on. If the deliveries have to be suspended during those periods of industrial trouble, and if they have to be resumed afterwards then our Government must abide by those terms and take delivery in accordance with their contract. It will do us greater harm if we allow our Government to repudiate n document to which they have set their hands than if we have to stand the loss that may accrue to this country by carrying it out.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Of course, the Government will have to abide by their contract; there is no doubt whatever about that. Although we support the Government in abiding by their contract, it is perfectly obvious that we are entitled to vote against them on this item as a protest against the contract having been made and against the results of that contract upon the home trade—results which they have taken no steps whatever to make good or to obviate. What struck me about the speech of the hon. Gentleman yesterday was principally the disingenous attempt he made to put the blame for this obviously stupid contract upon the Liberal predecessors of the right hon. Gentleman. He made great play with the fact that for six months this contract had been discussed between Mr. Hughes, Mr. McKenna, and Mr. Runciman. That was a purely disingenous argument. He knows perfectly well that the contract was signed by the Coalition Government in April, 1917, and it is the people who signed the document who are responsible for the terms. It is quite possible that these terms were discussed for months beforehand. In fact, I rather imagine that it took many months, even with the able advocacy of Mr. William Hughes, before he could get Ministers to consent to such terms, but obviously the people who signed must take responsibility.
This contract is an admirable example of the sort of thing that goes on during a war and the sort of way in which patriotism can be made to pay—to pay some people. Mr. William Hughes deserves all the credit for showing Australia how patriotism can be made to pay. These concentrates were being sold before the War under a long contract, if I understand it, to the German base
metal owners at a price of 40s. a ton. Then patriotism reared its head in Australia and said, "We will no longer be bound to supply concentrates at 40s. a. ton to these alien enemies of ours, we will cancel the contract." They cancelled the contract and made a fresh one, not at 40s. a ton, but at £4 10s. a ton. Patriotism at 200 per cent.! As they had had plenty of experience of long contracts at the nominal figure of 40s. a ton, through the mouth of Mr. William Hughes they persuaded the Coalition Government to give them a 13 years' contract at £4 10s. per ton—£4 10s. for the first 100,000 tons, and £4 for the balance. I have heard a great deal of criticism of the C.W.S for managing to make a bad speculation in rubber. We are told that that is an example of the incompetence of the working people in this country to carry on business. They did lose money on rubber, but they are not losing it still. Their contract is not going to run until 1930. We have been told that the Dunlop management were incompetent, if not worse. They, too, made contracts ahead, and they managed to lose £8,000,000, but their contract is at an end. It is only the Coalition Government which has a 13 years' contract, which enables our losses to go on year after year for 13 years for the advantage of super-patriots on the other side of the world.
When the hon. and gallant Member for Hull was speaking he asked whether this debt of ours to the mine-owners in Australia could not be set off against interest due from Australia to this country on money loaned to Australia. He was told authoritatively and correctly from below the Gangway that Australia, I think, alone of our Colonies and Allies, had funded its debt and was paying us interest upon that debt. That is a very good lead which Australia has given, but I want to ask my right hon. Friend if there is included in that consolidated debt from Australia the £500,000 that was advanced by this country for building smelting works in Australia? I do not mean the Avonmouth Works, but the money spent on putting up works in Australia.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: They denied it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Oh. It was not advanced. In that case that point drops to the ground. The position then is
simply that we are bound to go on for the next eight years paying large sums to these Australian mine-owners on this contract. I think we are entitled to ask for those figures which the hon. Gentleman could not give us. We are entitled to ask for some estimate as to the annual loss that is likely to be involved. We want to know what are the prospects under this contract. Naturally the right hon. Gentleman and any Member of the Coalition Government which is responsible for this contract will attempt to conceal from the country the probable losses under this contract. For the same reason we are entitled to press for those figures. At the present moment you are paying £4 10s. You are selling those concentrates, either in this country or in Germany—and they are almost certainly being sold in Germany—at a price, I understand, of 75s. a ton, or it may be 70s. a ton, whereas their cost delivered in this country must amount to over £8 a ton. In other words, there is a dead loss of nearly £5 a ton on every one of these 250,000 tons a year, which means a loss of £1,250,000 every year for the next eight years, unless trade recovers everywhere, there is a boom on the Continent, and they are able to increase the demand for spelter sufficiently to force up the price of the raw material. I am afraid that, under the administration and guidance of the present Government, there is little likelihood of that revival of trade on the Continent to call for that increased demand for spelter. Things may go worse than they are at present. The demand for spelter may fall, and we may lose more than £5 a ton. Let us know what our prospects of losses are for the next two or three years, and see that in future the Government budget for that loss, and not conceal it until the loss actually occurs.
There is another point I want to make in connection with this Vote. It is notorious that the mines in this country, which were attempting to produce concentrates in competition with the Australian mines, are absolutely ruined. I think they are all closed down. They cannot possibly supply their raw material at 75s. a ton, or anything near it. You have ruined those mines altogether. You are not prepared, I understand, to buy up their raw material at the same price, and I am not surprised. After all, when you are incurring a loss of £1,250,000, you do
not want to increase it to £1,500,000 not even in order to be fair. You have a bad contract, and you mean to confine your bad contract to as small an area as possible. Quite right. But would it not be just as well to sell off the zinc concentrates you have got at any price? What I am afraid of is that you are banking up reserves which will prevent, at the end of the contract, these English mines ever restarting. Your reserves are accumulating. You are attempting to cut your loss as small as possible by banking up reserves. I think you had better go to the other extreme, and cut your loss, and let the raw material go on to the market at any sort of price possible. Let us see, at any rate, that, this disaster to the lead and zinc mining industry in this country is confined to as few years as possible, so that they are not faced at the end of this contract with gigantic reserves which will prevent these mines ever restarting. If we have this contract, trade in this country may as well get the advantage of it. We may as well supply the concentrates as cheaply as possible to the smelting industry of this country, and keep the smelting industry well developed here.
I thoroughly agree with the hon. and gallant Member for East Middlesbrough (Colonel P. Williams) that if this contract is to be carried out, let us carry it out in such a way that we do not hold up industry. The cheaper the raw material, the cheaper the finished goods. Let us see that we in England get the advantage of these cheaper goods, and, at any rate, do not try to ride both horses at once. Having ruined our producing mines, let us at least put the spelter upon the market at a price which enables the finishing trades to get their raw material cheaper, and to develop their industry in this country. But the point we wish to make is this. This contract is the result of superpatriotism. This contract is the result of Mr. William Hughes' incursion into this country. He made good terms for his people. The Coalition Government made bad terms for the people of this country, and, so long as you have people who combine patriotism with business, whether they be represented on the bench below the Gangway, or on that bench, the community is liable to be left to fall between two stools.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Baldwin): I should like to remind my hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken, in his capacity of Leader of the Labour party, of one fact, of which I should not have reminded him if he had not made such a bitter attack on the Government with regard to this contract, and that is, that when the contract was signed, Members of his party were also Members of the Coalition, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Widnes (Mr. A. Henderson) was a Member of the War Cabinet. I said last night in my speech that it really now was an immaterial matter where the responsibility lay, because the responsibility was so spread, and I repeat that again. We have this contract, and we have to carry it out, but I may say, in answer to the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) and other hon. Members who raised the point, and particularly, perhaps, to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), that if he had been in the House yesterday to hear my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, I am quite sure he would have realized, as he has not perhaps realised in reading the speech, that he explained with very great care the history of this contract, he concealed nothing, and there was no attempt on his part at all to father the contract on Members of this House to whose names he alluded. As a matter of fact, when he mentioned the names of those who had negotiations with Mr. Hughes, the first name he mentioned was that of the right hon. Member for Central Glasgow (Mr. Bonar Law). I suppose my hon. and gallant Friend was so excited at hearing such well-known names, that he did not pay attention to what followed.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Why drag in the Paris Resolutions?

Mr. BALDWIN: I think it was perfectly legitimate. My hon. Friend went on to explain quite clearly the dates of the subsequent contracts, and made it perfectly clear what the facts were, that the terms were agreed under the first Coalition Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), and that the contracts were put into shape and signed under the second War Coalition under the present Prime Minister. To answer the specific
question of my hon. and gallant Friend, I understand that the actual signatory to the contract was a predecessor of mine, Lord Ashfield, then Sir Albert Stanley. While dealing with that point, I may as well take the next point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull, that is, with regard to a certain sum of money which he alleges was spent at Avonmouth. That may or may not be the case. I am very sorry I know nothing about it, and cannot give him the information, because it has nothing to do with this Vote, or anything that has occurred, so far as I know, under the Board of Trade. My mind moves less quickly than that of my hon. and gallant Friend. It takes me all my time to keep pace with my own Estimates, and I cannot be responsible for matters that fall within the purview of other Ministers; but I have no doubt a question on that subject addressed to someone on this bench might, perhaps, get an answer. There was one expression of hope that my hon. and gallant Friend made which I endorse most cordially. He said he hoped the people of this country would understand what this contract meant. I hope they will. I hope they will understand it a great deal better than my hon. and gallant Friend, who regards this £600,000 as lost. It is not lost, but money to purchase concentrates. The purchase of concentrates may result in some loss. Whatever loss arises will be shown in the Trading Results published annually, and laid before this House.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Why ask for money if there is no loss?

Mr. BALDWIN: Because you have to have the money to pay for the concentrates before you can sell them. The hon. and gallant Member for Middlesbrough, if I may say so, made a very helpful speech. Perhaps I say that because I find myself so much in agreement with what he said. I consider his suggestions valuable, and shall bear them in mind. With regard to the specific question he asked, if I understood him aright, I think he was inquiring about transport. We have no freight commitments of which I am aware to prevent us taking advantage of the best freights that may obtain at any given time. To come back to my hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Wignall), he apologised, quite unnecessarily, I think,
to the House because he said he was carried away, and, indeed, if all the statements he made really were literal statements of fact, he would have been justified in being carried away a great deal further than he was, but I hope to be able to give him some comfort before I have finished.

Mr. WIGNALL: I am sure we need it badly.

Mr. BALDWIN: My lion. Friend wanted some information as to the amount of concentrates to be taken up in these contracts, and as to the position of the spelter contract. I can only think that perhaps my hon. Friend was so interested yesterday in pleading the special case he did plead, that he did not follow all that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said on that subject, because he referred to a paragraph in the Geddes Committee's Report, and he read it fully. It is on page 10 of the Second Interim Report, paragraph 6. It gives the dates and the figures in their entirety, and also says quite clearly that the spelter contract is a distinct contract from the concentrates contract. The two contracts run together, bear the same date, and were entered into at the same time, and they were signed by my noble predecessor whose name I have already quoted. But, what, I think was worrying—if I may use the word—my hon. Friend's mind, was that he felt that if we had to purchase 45,000 tons of spelter a year, we should be knocking out the spelter industry in this country. If he really believes it, I think on this occasion he knows less about the spelter trade than even I do. The amount of spelter consumed in this country before the War, as be knows, was something in the neighbourhood of 200,000 tons a year. Does he remember what the output of the British works was? It was something like 55,000 tons.

Mr. WIGNALL: I am quite familiar with all these facts. My only concern is about the spelter trade of this country that manufactures some 50,000 to 60,000 tons. It is to save that industry from being entirely wiped out that is my concern.

Mr. BALDWIN: When the demand for spelter becomes normal my hon. Friend will see what an immense scope there is to supply the requirements of
this country over and above what our smelters have ever been able to produce. He knows as well as I do that up to now the spelter works have been idle because it was quite impossible for them to produce at present prices, and that it is only owing to the specially low contracts made, for a specific quantity over a specific time, both limited, to enable these works to start that they have been enabled to start. There is no question of their being crushed out by anything else to-day except the world price of spelter, and the existence of the zinc concentrates contract has enabled us to give them such terms that they can start in the hope that by the time they have got going and have used up the parcels that have been sold to them, the position of the galvanising trade and other trades that use spelter may at all events have improved to the point where they may be able to take sufficient spelter to keep the British works going on full time

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is there any intention of keeping the Avonmouth works going as well?

Mr. BALDWIN: I know nothing about the Avonmouth works. I remember something being said about them, but I imagine that scheme is defunct; it has not come under ray notice. A suggestion was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) which shows he had not given all the attention to this subject that he usually does give to a subject. He said, "Sell all your concentrates at any price and cut your loss." It is very easy to do that when you can find buyers, but the House must recognise that at present there is so little spelter being made that it is perfectly impossible at any price to sell the whole output, and there is no alternative but to pile up stocks. It is one of the unfortunate features of the present situation with regard to this contract, and it is no good to do otherwise than to look facts in the face. I think my hon. Friend was not entitled to say that if it is impossible to cancel this contract it will turn out a dead loss during every year of its course. I explained to the House last night that in the latter years that it had to run, if it fulfils its course, it would probably provide a profit; but it is perfectly impossible to forecast that and I do not propose to
make a forecast; it is perfectly impossible to do so even a year ahead No one who has ever dealt in metals knows what the loss, if any, will be. It depends on world market conditions, and in the present state of world markets I do not believe there is a man in the United Kingdom who could give a safe forecast six months ahead. I very much hope the House will be prepared to come to a decision on this Report stage soon, because we had a very full Debate last night, and I have done my best to answer questions on this difficult subject to-day, and there is another very important. Estimate coming on. I shall be very glad if the House can come to a decision soon.

Sir D. MACLEAN: There is just one point I wish to emphasise. My right hon. Friend in his reply referred to the helpful suggestions, as he termed them, made by my hon. Friend one of the Members for East Middlesbrough (Colonel P. Williams). A suggestion he made was a business man's suggestion—that, although the contract is one which we cannot break, the business way of dealing with it is to meet the other party and say, "Now, let us have a square deal on this. How much do you want to release us?" That is the way in which these things are done, it is an honest way and a businesslike way, and in the end it is the economical way. The answer which my right hon. Friend gave was that he would take it into careful consideration. I have heard a good deal of this Debate last night, and a good deal to-day, and I do not think I am at all out when I say that the Committee yesterday, and the House to-day, were mainly concerned about that point. I think that was really the thing which was moving the minds of Members. Cannot my right hon. Friend go further than expressing what I hope is not merely a pious aspiration? Can he not assure the House not only that he is prepared to take it into consideration, but that he can hold out a confident expectation that actual steps will be taken to bring it about, or, at any rate, undertake to initiate the negotiations which may lead, as we hope, to a successful conclusion? I only want to urge on him what I think is the view of the House as a whole, but it must not be left merely as an aspiration, but as the deliberate intention of the Government.

Mr. RAE: This contract on concentrates is not the only contract between the English Government and Mr. Hughes as negotiator for the other side. I do not want to say anything against any efforts the President of the Board of Trade may put forward in order to get this contract cancelled, but assuming that Mr. Hughes is met and the case is put before him, what would Mr. Hughes say, or anybody else who had negotiated for the people in Australia? He would say, "You want to get out of your losses. I want to ask you one question, 'Are you prepared to hand over to us your profits on other contracts you have made with us?'" That will be the question Mr. Hughes will put, and if whoever is negotiating on our side answers, "Yes, we are prepared to do that," we should lose a great deal more in handing over the profits this country has made out of its contracts on wool with the Australian Government than we can possibly lose on its contracts in concentrates. Any business man who enters into a contract has to carry it out or go into the Bankruptcy Court, and no man can take profits if he is not prepared to stand losses. If he can, he is in a type of business that I have had no experience of. The House should remember that it has made great profits out of one transaction with the Australian Government, even if it has to put against it some losses which are far less.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say he was selling speller to the Germans?

Mr. BALDWIN: The hon. Member could not have been in the House yesterday when I dealt with that point, and said that we are not.

Mr. BETTERTON: I gather that the view which commends itself to many Members of this House not unfavourably as the best way of getting out of these contracts is to pay a sum in damages to the Australian Government. I wish to point out that this might be a good business arrangement for this country—might be—but so far as the English mines are concerned the lump sum would be a subsidy to the Australians. If large sums are paid in damages to the Australians it is reasonable for some sum to be paid in compensation to the industry in this country which has been completely destroyed by reason of those contracts.

Mr. MILLS: The point I wish to stress is that the President of the Board of Trade has not answered to the satisfaction of the House, so far as Members on this side are concerned, a query definitely put as to whether German industry is receiving this raw material at the expense of the British taxpayer. That is a point which the President of the Board of Trade has specifically denied; but I want him, if he will, to give us the, figures of imports into Antwerp of these particular commodities.

Mr. BALDWIN: I cannot give any figures of that kind, but I have assured the House twice that none of this stuff is going to Germany, and I can assure them now for the third time.

Mr. MILLS: I can only say that the ramifications of international finance are so devious that we feel justified in assuming, if you cannot trace the source to which this raw material goes, that those people, among the cleverest of our world competitors, are getting at least some portion of it. It ought not to be assumed by Members of the House that this is a worked-up agitation by Members-of the Labour party and anti-Government critics. The Australian Press has been far more active than the British Press in showing up what they regard as a scandal. The British Press has always been more or less muzzled according to the particular Government that controls it, but in Australia, whoever has been in office, there has always been a virile Press, never ready to subscribe to the so-called necessities of the geniuses that govern us, but always ready to hit out wherever they are sure that the frailties of humanity are becoming apparent. The "Sydney Bulletin" says quite definitely that the less people talk in this connection about patriotism and their unselfish affection for Father John Bull the better, and I would remind the President of the Board of Trade, who did not give the full quotation from the Geddes Report, that what they did say was:
We are not familiar with the reasons for entering into this long-term agreement. The extent of the loss cannot at present be estimated, but it is almost certain to run into several millions.
The Members on this side of the House have been trying to put the point of view, the very human point of view, that the industry in Durham, Cumberland, Scot-
land and Wales should be at least helped through one of the worst post-War periods. Members on the other side of the House literally screamed at the mention of subsidies, and said the miners should bear their burdens with the rest of the community and put up with the consequences. But unless some measures are taken such as are suggested by one of the Members for East Middlesbrough (Colonel P. Williams) we are likely to have this debit item year after year for the period of the contract, and we do hope the suggestion put forward there will be acted on by the Government, because over and over again quotations can be given from the Australian Press to prove just exactly how they view this. They view it from the point of view that

exploiters have used the Government of Australia, acting under the auspices of a company, to secure a contract which makes it almost farcical for the President of the Board of Trade to speak of prosperity coming back when the pre-War price of this commodity was 40s. a ton, and, on his own admission, it is still at £4. Anyone who talks about bringing down the cost of production and who understands just exactly what a menacing factor that is in preventing any reversion to the normal, must admit, that if works were working for nothing a week this forbidding item of cost would alone make it almost impossible to recover.

Question put, "That '£601,200' stand part of the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 147; Noes, 73.

Division No. 13.]
AYES.
[7.45 p.m.


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray


Armitage, Robert
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Prescott, Major Sir W. H.


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Haslam, Lewis
Purchase, H. G.


Atkey, A. R
Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
Rae, H. Norman


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Ramsden, G. T


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Rankin, Captain James Stuart


Barker, Major Robert H.
Hinds, John
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler


Barlow, Sir Montague
Hood, Sir Joseph
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel


Barnston, Major Harry
Hopkins, John W. W.
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor (Barnstaple)


Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Renwick, Sir George


Barrand, A. R.
Hudson, R. M.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Hurd, Percy A.
Rodger, A. K.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund


Bigland, Alfred
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Birchall, J. Dearman
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Johnstone, Joseph
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Bruton, Sir James
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Shortt, Rt. Hon E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Simm, M. T.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Campion, Lieut-Colonel W. R.
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Carew, Charles Robert S.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Carr, W. Theodore
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Sugden, W. H.


Cautley, Henry Strother
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Sutherland, Sir William


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Taylor, J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Lorden, John William
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Lort-Williams, J.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell (Maryhill)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Macquisten, F. A.
Tickler, Thomas George


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Manville, Edward
Townley, Maximilian G.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Walton, J. (York. W. R., Don Valley)


Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Martin, A. E.
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Matthews, David
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent)


Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Waring, Major Walter


Dixon, Captain Herbert
Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.
Warren, Sir Alfred H.


Edge, Captain Sir William
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Morris, Richard
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Murchison, C. K.
Windsor, Viscount


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Neal, Arthur
Wise, Frederick


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Worthington, Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Forrest, Walter
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Gilbert, James Daniel
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Younger, Sir George


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)



Green, Albert (Derby)
Pearce, Sir William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Perkins, Walter Frank
Dudley Ward.


Greig, Colonel James William
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles



NOES.


Adamson Rt. Hon. William
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Betterton, Henry B.


Ammon, Charles George
Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.


Bromfield, William
Hayward, Evan
Robertson, John


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Poyce, William Stapleton


Cairns, John
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Sexton, James


Cape, Thomas
Irving, Dan
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Davies, A (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sutton, John Edward


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Swan, J. E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kenyon, Barnet
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lawson, John James
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Lowther, Col. Claude (Lancaster)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Lunn, William
Tootill, Robert


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Mills, John Edmund
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Gillis, William
Mosley, Oswald
Wignall, James


Glanville, Harold James
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Murray, William (Dumfries)
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Myers, Thomas
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbrdge)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Naylor, Thomas Ellis
[...]tringham, Margaret


Grundy, T. W.
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon, Hugh
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Gwynne, Rupert S.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Hancock, John George
Raffan, Peter Wilson
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. Hogge and Mr. T. Griffiths.


Hayday, Arthur
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)



Question put, and agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS.

[21ST FEBRUARY.]

Resolution reported,
That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, the sum of £2,961,704 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Bill ordered to be brought in by the Chairman of Ways and Means, The Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Hilton Young.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL,

"to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two," presented accordingly and read the First time; to be react a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 39.]

SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir EDWIN CORNWALL in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPART- MENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1921–22.

UNCLASSIFIED SERVICES.

CRIMINAL INJURIES (IRELAND) COMPENSA- TION.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £215,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the
Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for the payment of Compensation for Criminal Injuries and Medical and Nursing Expenses of Crown Employés who have been maliciously injured.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): This Vote is not the only one on the Paper. There are others. I do not know what the wishes of the Committee may be, but I think perhaps it would be most convenient if we had such a general discussion as you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, will permit and as is possible on one or other of these Votes. I would make a general statement explaining, for the convenience of the Committee, what actually it is we are proposing to do, and for what we want the money. I do not know, Sir Edwin, whether you think that would be the most convenient course?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There is a Vote for £1,130,000, but that is not now before the Committee. The Vote I have just read out is for £215,000. Then there are Votes for £14,000 for payments under the Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, etc; for £13,900 criminal prosecutions and other law charges; £10 for the Supreme Court of Judicature, etc., Ireland; £19,837 for the salary and expenses of the Supreme Court of Judicature, Northern Ireland; and Local Government Board, Ireland, £10. Of course if any one of these Votes opened up the whole policy then it would be in order to allow a general discussion, but I am not sure that I can read the general policy into the first or any of these Votes.

Mr. THOMAS: On that same point, Sir Edwin. This question of compensation for injuries raises the question of Mallow. Compensation of varying amounts was awarded to the wives and children of a number of railwaymen. I do not, for obvious reasons, desire to rake up the Mallow inquiry, but I should like to know whether what I want to say on the matter can be raised on this Vote, or what Vote it can be raised on. If, as I gather, the Government are going to accept responsibility for the circumstances connected with Mallow, the only opportunity of raising that issue would be on this particular Vote. I should like your ruling.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I can, of course, move this Vote, and just make one or two brief words in explanation; but I am entirely in the hands of the Committee.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I shall be very glad to assist the Committee, but I do not know at present how far the Committee would desire to carry a discussion. It seems to me it must be somewhat limited, necessarily, if we take these Votes as they are. If, for instance, we have a general discussion on this Vote, then a general discussion might be claimed on a later Vote. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman had better proceed and let me see how far we can go.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I shall confine myself strictly to the Vote before the Committee.

8.0 P.M.

Major-General SEELY: Would it not be much more convenient if the right hon. Gentleman said what his policy was 'with regard to compensation before we discuss the details, because we cannot discuss them adequately until we know what the Government propose to do?

The DEPUTY- CHAIRMAN: I have only this Vote of £215,000 for compensation for criminal injuries and medical and nursing expenses of Crown employés before me at the present moment, and I think it will be better to keep to that Vote.

Mr. THOMAS: Would it not be better if I moved a formal reduction of this Vote, in order to raise the whole issue as to how far this compensation is to be applied?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There is no necessity to do that.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Vote which we are now considering is for £215,000 compensation for criminal injuries and medical and nursing expenses of Crown employés who have been maliciously injured. It is a perfectly simple Vote. It provides the sum needed for the purpose of dealing with the more pressing cases of personal injury to our own people, for which the British Government has made itself liable. We require this sum to meet these distressing cases of widows left entirely unprovided for through their husbands being murdered, and individuals who have suffered grievous injury and are now requiring medical attendance. The principle which we intend to pursue in dealing with personal injuries is that we have agreed with the Provisional Government that each country shall look after its own casualties. The compensation to the British personnel who have been injured, or the relations of those who have been killed, will be defrayed by this Vote, and the Irish who were injured or killed on the other side in the fighting, will be looked after by the Irish Free State. Under this arrangement each Government has an equal interest in looking after its own people and preventing undue claims. That seems to us to be the best arrangement, and this £215,000 is needed for dealing with the more pressing of those cases, and I hope the Committee will pass this Vote.

Mr. MOSLEY: Who are the "law-abiding persons in necessitous circumstances?" They are not widows of our own people.

Mr. THOMAS: I much prefer on this Vote to raise the general question. Shortly, the Colonial Secretary says this: the Irish Provisional Government has accepted responsibility for what I would prefer to call the victims on their side. The British Government say: "We accept responsibility for the victims on our side." The difficulty in connection with the Mallow case is that it looks as if neither side is going to accept the railwaymen's widows as victims. In this case, there was a body of men including a number of railwaymen, some of whom were killed whilst performing their duty as railwaymen. One side said that these railwaymen were killed by the Black and
Tans, and the other side say they were killed by the Republican Army. This is not the time to enter into the merits of the case as to whether the Black and Tans or the other side were responsible, but on the statement made by my right hon. Friend, now, clearly it is obvious that these people are going to be left in the cold, because the Provisional Government can turn round and say: "We only accept the responsibility for our own people engaged in the struggle." On the other hand, the British Government can say, "We only accept responsibility for the wives or widows or dependants of the soldiers."
In this particular case the railwaymen were the victims. The result was that we went to Court and got a verdict for something like £7,000 or £8,000, based upon the children left where the fathers were killed, and so much for the widows. Seeing that we are now discussing the whole issue of the particular victims of the late War, I ask whether the right thing to do would not be to say that if there is a verdict in a Court of Law and damages awarded, then the British Government ought to accept the responsibility. I do not think this is the right time to raise the merits of the dispute, and I will merely limit myself to pointing out that there is a judgment in a court of law awarding these widows and dependants certain sums of money, but that money has never been paid. If the right hon. Gentleman will say that in this vote provision is being taken to meet these cases, that will satisfy me. On the other hand, if he says it will be met, that will satisfy me. For the moment the statement is that both sides should be responsible for their particular victims, but these railwaymen's dependants appear to he left out in the cold.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Why should the railwaymen not be included among "law-abiding persons" who were injured?

Mr. THOMAS: My right hon. Friend has got it exactly. If he will say that their case will be covered, then I waive my opposition.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot say that they are necessarily included in this actual amount, but our intention is that persons injured by the other side, who were law-abiding persons injured by the Sinn Fein forces or the rebel forces in the war, are our responsibility, and where
those persons have got judgment in their favour, and nobody is going to be responsible, then we are going to accept the responsibility for personal injuries. When the other Vote is taken, I shall make a fuller statement and show how we are going to deal with property. As far as personal injuries to Crown forces, who were law-abiding persons, are concerned, we are going to be responsible, and I should have thought that the railwaymen were certainly included in that. If they are law-abiding persons, and come within that scope, and they were on our side, and not on the other side, we shall be responsible, and accept the verdict of the Court given in their favour, and either in part or in whole that will be defrayed out of the Vote on account which we are now asking the House to give us.

Mr. THOMAS: A general statement is not sufficient for my purpose. We want to know exactly what this means. In this particular case, as I understand it, the agreement with the Provisional Government was this: Any loyal subjects injured or killed on our side we will be responsible for, and the same thing applies to the other side. In the, case I have brought forward, we have had two reports. First there was a Government inquiry and that finished by justifying the military, and that was the substance of the Report. We were then faced with this difficulty. These are members of our union and, apart from the political aspect, there are certain moral responsibilities attached to us as a union with regard to people who are our members. We afterwards went to an Irish Court and got a verdict for certain specified sums allocated to the widows and the children in different amounts. We have made repeated efforts before the Irish Law Courts to get those amounts, hut up to now we have not had a copper.

The CHAIRMAN: I cannot see how the hon. Member connects the argument he is putting forward with this Vote, which is for the payment of compensation for criminal injuries and medical and nursing expenses of Crown employés who have been maliciously injured. The railwaymen do not seem to me to come under this Vote.

Mr. THOMAS: We have had a discussion as to what this Vote is, and the Colonial Secretary has defined it as being
in conformity with an agreement with the Provisional Government in Ireland who will provide for their own victims and the British Government will provide for theirs, and we want to clearly understand who are the victims. The people I am dealing with could be left out under the definition which is put forward unless it is cleared up. It was generally agreed that this Vote was the one on which I could raise this question.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Naturally I find a difficulty in reference to a particular case. I understand that these men have got a verdict from a Court and that fact is presumptive evidence that they belong to us and it is our business to defray the expense.

Mr. O'NEILL: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the agreement with the Provisional Government. I suppose we may take it that any arrangement as regards compensation for law-abiding persons will apply equally to Northern Ireland and to Southern Ireland.

Mr. CHURCHILL: When I make my statement on the question of damage to property, I shall be able to tell the House exactly what we have arranged with the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland for the treatment of this subject in Northern Ireland. The conditions are not exactly the same. With regard to damage done in Southern Ireland, there are two opposing forces. We pay our share and the other side pay their share. But in Ulster the damage was done entirely through lawless violence, and we take a different attitude, the main burden falling on us. The arrangement has been discussed between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, and when I make my general statement on the subject of compensation I will deal with that point.

Major-General SEELY: When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to make his statement which is awaited with very much interest? I suggest it would never be more in order than it is now. There is no specific Vote on which it can be made except by a rather wide interpretation of the Rules of the Committee. Can we have any indication from the right hon. Gentleman when it is proposed to make the statement?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am anxious to make it in the near future. I do not think this would be a convenient opportunity. It would certainly be out of order on this Vote. I do not propose to trespass on the Committee to-night.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I think it would be as well to have as clear an understanding as possible on this matter. The Vote now before the Committee is very comprehensive in its scope and if hon. Members will look at the bottom of page 49 (a) they will see the words
Advances on account of compensation in respect of injuries to the person or property of Crown employés and of law abiding citizens in necessitous circumstances.
That, of course, does limit the Debate in that respect, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is not a convenient opportunity to make the general statement which I am sure the House wishes to hear, and which might be raised op another Vote for Miscellaneous Services to be administered by the Provisional Government which quite obviously brings the whole range of this question into the ambit of legitimate discussion. What I suggest is that we should take this Vote and, of course, debate it within its proper limits which are clearly defined in the note attached to it. We can then take other smaller Votes, and I am quite certain there is sufficient to keep the Committee engaged in the interests of economy and administration until 11 o'clock. The officers of the Treasury and the Chief Whip will then seek a proper opportunity of putting as the first Order on another day a Vote which will cover the whole ground. It should be a day convenient to the House as a whole and an early day as well.

Sir W. DAVISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the compensation which has actually been awarded, especially to women for the loss of their husbands in the recent Irish fighting, will be paid? I drew the Chief Secretary's attention a few days ago to the case of an unfortunate lady who lost her husband—an officer in the Royal Irish Constabulary—last year, and who obtained judgment for £9,500 compensation in the courts. So far she has only received £3,000. As the House is aware, investment stocks have recently been rising very considerably, and therefore the income which this lady would have derived, had she been able to get her money at the time it was
awarded her, will now be very considerably less because of the rise in values of stocks since April last. I want to know when these compensation awards will be paid. I presume interest will be paid as from the date of the award until the day of payment.

Captain ELLIOT: I want to say a word as to the definition of "law abiding." I take it that the Irish Free State accepts responsibility for those of its actual belligerent force who were killed or injured in the recent fighting, and we take responsibility for our belligerent forces. In addition to that the British taxpayer is to shoulder the burden for injuries to non-combatant, whether they arose from the action of the forces of Sinn Fein or of the forces of the Crown. We are to shoulder this very large expenditure. It seems to me that that is the point made by the right hon. Member or Derby (Mr. Thomas). As far as I can understand his point—on which he received satisfaction—it was that the people who were injured as a result of fighting between the forces of Sinn Fein and the forces of the Crown, and who got from the Court of Inquiry a verdict exonerating the forces of the Crown, are reckoned as law-abiding persons, and according to the definition given by the Colonial Secretary the compensation to be paid to them is to come out of the pockets of the British taxpayer, although the verdict was against Sinn Fein.

Mr. MOSLEY: I confess that the question just raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot) remains a very ambiguous point in my mind. The right hon. Gentleman said that we are each to bear our own casualties, and therefor we will pay for the casualties to loyalists. How is the term "loyalist" defined in Ireland? Who is a loyalist? The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that anyone who obtained a verdict in the Courts would be compensated by the English Crown. But a great many people who brought actions in the Court did not, I imagine, belong to the class of persons who come within the strict definition of the term "loyalists."

Mr. CHURCHILL: The term is "law-abiding."

Mr. MOSLEY: That is precisely what we are trying to get at. Does it mean that the English taxpayer is to pay for all damage through loss of life or injury
to property sustained by any person in Ireland against whom no definite proof rests of implication in guilty transactions, although the less of life may have been caused or the damage to property inflicted by the other side? We bear the losses of the whole of the law-abiding people, that is to say, the people against whom no definite proof rests of their implication in any guilty transaction. In other words, if my diagnosis be correct, the English Government pays for all casualties in Ireland, by whichever side they have been inflicted, except those casualties actually sustained by the Sinn Fein forces in the course of the various affrays. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that the original position in this matter under the Act that was passed, was that all compensation for such injuries was leviable upon the district concerned. In nearly every case the district refused to pay, and we then, in most instances, deducted the compensation from grants that we were making to the local council, getting it back in that way. I now understand from the right hon. Gentleman that, under this agreement with the Provisional Government into which our Government have entered, we undertake to pay compensation to anyone sustaining personal injury or loss of property in Ireland, against whom no definite proof rests that he was implicated in any guilty transaction. The right hon. Gentleman may be able to explain it, but certainly, if this rests on the definition of a law-abiding person, and any loss to a law-abiding person is sustained by the British Government, I cannot see how we can refuse to pay for any injury, provided that the person injured is without the ambit of the criminal law. I shall be interested to hear what other definition the right hon. Gentleman can read into this agreement, and still more interested to hear his description of our position in regard to specific cases. May I ask him definitely, for instance, whether the English taxpayer will pay for the burning of Cork?

Mr. CHURCHILL: That has nothing to do with this Vote.

Mr. MOSLEY: This Vote refers to injuries to person or property of law-abiding persons in necessitous circumstances.

Mr. CHURCHILL: There is no money for that in this Vote.

Mr. MOSLEY: Then perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell me for what specific purposes the money in this Vote is to be applied? Presumably it is to be applied to analogous cases—cases in which widespread destruction of property or loss of life occured, and in which that loss cannot be ascribed to any definite person. Probably the matter rests in that anomalous atmosphere in which the utterances of the Chief Secretary left most of these occurrences in Ireland. There is probably no definite proof that casualties were inflicted by either side, and I gather from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that, whichever side inflicted the casualties, as long as they were inflicted on law-abiding persons, we are to pay whether we did the damage or not. I presume that this Vote refers to the destruction of property or the shooting of certain people under doubtful circumstances. I presume that compensation for these injuries was levied on the district, in accordance with the practice of the Government, that the district refused to pay, that we deducted the compensation from grants to the local council, and that now, under the agreement with the Provisional Government, the English Government has, after all decided to foot the Bill for all the damage, whoever inflicted it. If that be the case, and from the words of the right hon. Gentleman I can read no other meaning into the agreement, that which throughout the struggle was prophesied consistently from these benches has come to pass. England is to pay for all the damage inflicted in Ireland during the troublous period under discussion. It is a bill of failure and a bill of disgrace. We are now footing the bill for the blunders of the Government during a period when their administration in Ireland was resisted day and night from these benches. The Chief Secretary finds it a subject for amusement when, in the course of the year, he has lost this country 600 lives and some millions of money. It may entertain the right hon. Gentleman, but it does not entertain the widows—

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir Hamar Greenwood): One can tolerate a good deal from the hon. Member, but it has never been a source of amusement to me that hundreds of gallant soldiers and police were assassinated, and I have never during the
course of my career as Chief Secretary, and never shall, look upon the assassination of anybody in Ireland except with the greatest horror. The hon. Member has no right to drag in an irrelevant and insolent accusation of that kind against me.

Mr. MOSLEY: If the right hon. Gentleman can justify the charge of the dismal failure of his policy in Ireland—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now getting far too wide in his remarks. He is going into the whole policy of the right hon. Gentleman in Ireland.

Mr. MOSLEY: Am I not entitled to submit that the money which we are now voting is entirely wasted, because the policy which it was designed to serve was reversed without one of the objects which it set out to secure being actually achieved?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is entitled to submit reasons whether or not this money should be voted, but he is not entitled to cast aspersions on the past policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary.

Mr. MOSLEY: I was going to submit that this money should not be voted without a reduction being moved, because it was purely wasted, owing to the maladministration of the right hon. Gentleman in pursuance of a policy which was reversed owing to its failure and defeat. If, however, I have traversed the Rules of Order, I of course bow to your ruling, and will not pursue the subject. I shall be grateful to the Chief Secretary if he will be so kind as to clear up this very dubious matter, and tell us whether, in fact, the English taxpayer is going to foot the bill after all for all the damage that was inflicted in Ireland, whether to life or to property, by whichever side it was inflicted and in whatever manner, and that the only loss borne by Sinn Fein is the compensation for the actual casualties which they incurred. Is it not the fact that all the rest of the damage during that troublous time through which we have passed, whether it was damage to life or to property, is paid for out of the pocket of the English taxpayer?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is characteristic of the hon. Gentleman that he should wish to intercept these moneys and prevent them from reaching the widows—

Mr. MOSLEY: What right has the right hon. Gentleman to say that I wish to intercept them? Nothing of the kind. It is quite untrue—

Mr. CHURCHILL: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He made a most offensive speech, largely, I think, in order to acquire practice, which he sadly needs, and in the course of it he repeated several times that this money ought not to be paid, and that it was a shameful bill. What is the bill? It is to pay for men who have been shattered for standing up for their country, and who, no doubt, had their work at the time made much more difficult by the kind of obstruction in which the hon. Gentleman was engaged during that period, and the class of criticism which he was bringing to bear in a stream upon us. It is those men who are shattered and who are being nursed in the hospitals, and the widows of those who have been killed in the service of the Crown, that he wishes to prevent from receiving this aid, and I trust that this matter will be brought home to him in other places beside the House of Commons. I never heard of anything more callous and gratuitous than to stand between these people and the aid which it is our bounden duty to give them. The hon. Gentleman also made a great deal of difficulty about the form in which this arrangement had been come to. The principle is a perfectly clear, simple and sensible one. In 99 cases out of 100 it is quite well known which side the people were on. It is true there are a certain number of border line cases—a very small proportion—where quite harmless people, not engaged in the conflicts on one side or the other, came into the line of fire, and those eases must be dealt with individually. They must be the subjects of discussion between us and the Provisional Government. We are not in any way making ourselves responsible for all injuries which have been done in Ireland to persons other than members of the Irish Republican Army. We are the judges in the matter. We undertake the responsibility of looking after our own supporters and those who have suffered on our side, and we leave to the other side a similar task in regard to theirs. The border line cases must be dealt with by negotiation in each particular case. When I come to deal with the question of the division of the burden in respect to dam-
age to property I shall show very clearly how the same principle is being applied, only in a somewhat different way. Each side in that case is paying for the damage it did. We believe it is possible to arrive at a very clear judgment on that point. I have been asked what can be done to hurry up these payments. The moment this money has been voted the advances will be made as rapidly as possible, and interest at 5 per cent. runs from the date of the injury. I hope in these circumstances that the Committee will permit us to get the Vote.

Sir G. COLLINS: The right hon. Gentleman has taken grave exception not only to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) but to the character of his speech. I think the House of Commons should take note of the two divergent views between my right hon. Friend opposite and my hon. Friend as to their policy in the past on this matter. My hon. Friend wanted this money intercepted. If the policy which he stood for in a hostile House had been adopted and carried into effect many months before the Government moved in the matter, not only would the right hon. Gentleman not be coming here this evening to ask the British taxpayer to find £215,000, but there would be a happier story and a happier position in Ireland to-night, and many of these people to whom we are granting compensation would not be suffering from damage to their lives and property through the policy of His Majesty's Government. I think my hon. Friend, having withstood hostile criticism in the House of Commons while the policy of reprisals was being carried out—

The CHAIRMAN: This is quite outside the scope of the discussion.

Sir G. COLLINS: I was only endeavouring to answer the debating point put by the Colonial Secretary in reply to my hon. Friend, but I will pass from that. In his opening statement the right hon. Gentleman stated that this sum of money was to meet the more pressing claims. Before we pass this Vote I think we are entitled to ask what is the total estimated liability which will fall on the State through granting compensation, not only to persons, but to property. I can quite understand that the Government cannot give a very
accurate figure, but as this Vote is for a new service we are entitled to ask what will be the sum required next year. The Chief Secretary might be able to give some information on that point. It has been clearly shown by hon. Members on both sides of the House that compensation will be granted to law-abiding persons in a wide sense of the term, and by so doing the door is open wide to the total compensation which is to be paid by the British taxpayer. I think we are entitled to ask for a close Estimate. During the earlier days of the week the House of Commons has voted largely increased sums to the Government to clear up their past policy in Ireland, and I am anxious to find out what is the total liability which will fall on the British taxpayer through the policy of the past. There are certain other Estimates which may come on to-night or on some other day for large sums of money. What is the total liability?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly in order in asking for an Estimate of the total liability under these sub-heads, but not for the total liability in Ireland.

Sir G. COLLINS: I realise that, but I was anxious to find out first of all what the total liability under this Vote will lead to, not only this year, but in the coming years, and by doing so we should be able to find out little by little the total cost of the policy of the past. But I will pass from that subject and ask the Chief Secretary if be will inform the Committee who will administer these sums. Who will settle whether they are to be paid or not? Can he give us some information as to the composition of the tribunal which will investigate these cases, for I can well understand that it will be a difficult matter, which will involve much detail, and I think the House of Commons is entitled to ask, when this large sum has been voted, what steps the Government intend to take to check the outpouring of public money in Ireland.

Mr. MOSLEY: If it had not been for the fact that the right hon. Gentleman, in accordance with his customary practice when he has got no case, saw fit to level accusations against me which are entirely untrue, I should not stand for a moment between compensation and those victims
of his policy whom I and those associated with me tried our hardest to save. Any charge more grossly untrue than that anyone on these Benches who has fought the policy of the Government throughout would be unwilling to give compensation to the victims of their iniquitous blunders and their grossly mistaken policy, I have never heard uttered in this House. The right. hon. Gentleman, with his accustomed command of casuistry, has failed to answer a plain question put to him. He was asked who pays for the casualties inflicted upon the great majority of those who have suffered in Ireland, namely, that class of people who come within a category somewhere between the two forces, winch cannot be accurately defined. If it is not apparent to which side these people belong, who then pays? Are we not to understand that any persons against whom no guilt can be proved, who has not been implicated in any outrage against the forces of the Crown, and, therefore, come within the category of "law-abiding," will have their compensation borne by the English Crown? If so, does it not follow that the lion's share of the bill, practically the whole bill in Ireland, with the exception of the few casualties actually suffered by Sinn Fein in the field, is to be borne by the English Crown? Does not the definition "law-abiding" cover any man or woman in Ireland who has been injured or whose property has been injured, and who has not been implicated in any outrage or against whom no proof of such implication exists. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman be able to give a definite answer to what is a very simple question, and I trust that in future, when he has no better case than he had to-night, he will abstain from levelling charges which be knows to be untrue.

CLASS I.

RAILWAYS, IRELAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £14,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for payments under the Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883, etc., the Railways (Ireland) Act, 1896, the Marine Works (Ireland) Act, 1902, and for other purpose connected with Irish Railways.

Sir G. COLLINS: Several hon. Members in different quarters of the Committee addressed direct questions to the Colonial Secretary and the Chief Secretary for Ireland on the last Vote and received no answer. I waited before rising, after the Question on this Vote had been put for some spokesman of the Government to explain the Vote to the Committee. This is not the day or the time for the House of Commons to vote public money without some explanation from His Majesty's Government, and I hope, therefore, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who I understand will take charge of this Vote, will give us some explanation of the figures in the Supplementary Estimate, so that we may know the reason why the Government are coming to the House for this money.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I presume the hon. Member is referring to this Vote for the railways?

Sir G. COLLINS: We asked several questions on the other Vote, but we got no answer. On this side of the Committee we are accustomed to put questions and not to receive an answer.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: It is so easy to say that. The Secretary of State for the Colonies made it clear that he would make a general pronouncement dealing with the points raised on the larger Vote. The hon. Member's leader, the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean), laid down a line, to which the whole Committee agreed, before the hon. Member came in, and that line was quite clear. The question raised by my hon. Friend, whose questions everyone welcomes, because we know how fervent he is in all matters of finance, will be dealt with on the larger Vote. The present Vote is in charge of the Treasury, so that I, for once, am not responsible.

Mr. YOUNG: The Committee is asked to vote £14,000, consisting of two items, one of £10,500 and the other of £3,500 which are independent and have no relation to each other, although they come under this Supplementary Estimate. As regards the first sum of £10,500 it is in respect of certain railways constructed under the Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883. This is an old business, as the Committee will see. Of the charges in respect of this Act—and that is the reason why the charge falls upon
this Estimate—the Treasury recoups half of the interest charged, subject to a maximum of 2 per cent., if it is required. In the case of these railways it has not infrequently been required. Why does it appear on the Supplementary Estimate this year? For this reason, that owing to the political troubles in Ireland, and owing to the paralysis of the administration of business caused by those political troubles, no application for repayment of the portion for which the Treasury is liable was made by the parties concerned in the year 1920–21. The parties concerned under the original scheme of guarantees were called "baronies," an old Irish term. They are now called "county councils." The county councils who were entitled to claim payment of this guarantee from the Treasury made no application in 1920–21, owing to the political troubles then in progress, and the fact that those county councils took up a certain view in regard to their relations to the British Government. In consequence the money could not be advanced in the year in which it was originally voted, and there was a saving of £10,500 for the year 1920–21. Owing to the happy settlement arrived at it is probable, if not certain, that the request for this contribution to which the county councils are entiled will now be made, and it is eminently desirable that we should be in a position to meet the demands for such a contribution when it is made. For that reason, the Committee is now asked to give authority for the expenditure of this sum of £10,500 if and when it is asked for by the county councils who are entitled to it under this old Act of Parliament.
The second matter deals with a wholly different matter. During the War three mineral railways were constructed as a special war measure in connection with the development of the Irish coal industry, and they were maintained, being worked by the Irish railways as agents. That arrangement ran until the termination of the control of the railways on 15th August, 1921. After that it was necessary to make fresh arrangements for the period following. These companies which previously had been working the railways agreed to continue to work them on a new basis for a period of at least a year at the actual cost on condition that the British Exchequer would undertake any deficit that arose. It followed after
control terminated that the responsibility for the administration of these lines was transferred to the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland and it was arranged that any loss arising from the working after the 15th August last should be charged on the Vote, and that is the charge which the Committee are now asked to authorise. I should explain in conclusion that this is a purely temporary liability during the interregnum and that this liability, which we shall discharge under this Supplementary Estimate, will terminate at the end of the financial year, when all such matters will become, under the Treaty, the financial responsibility of the Government of Southern Ireland.

Sir G. COLLINS: We are grateful to the Financial Secretary for his detailed explanation of the Estimate which is now under discussion. If I understood him properly, Government control of the railways in Ireland expired on 15th August, 1921, but, in the case of the three railways under sub-head C, it was found necessary to continue the guarantee for a limited time. Are there any further liabilities going to fall on the State next year owing to the period of control being extended in Ireland in a manner which was not granted in the case of the railway companies in this country? I think that it was generally understood that on 15th August, 1921, the total liability of the State, which was a very heavy one from month to month, should cease entirely. The Committee will understand that there was in Ireland, during that period and since its expiration, a condition which might tempt the Government for a limited period to continue that control, or, in other words, transfer money from the pockets of the British taxpayer to the share-holders of Irish railways. Whether it is justifiable in the circumstances that the British taxpayer should be taxed so that the shareholders in Irish railways should be guaranteed their dividends during the year 1921 is a matter as to which there will be divergent views in the Committee, but I would ask, are there any further liabilities on the State due to the period of control being extended so far as the railways are concerned, or in any other way, in the coming year?

9.0 P.M.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: When the two agreements dealing with the British rail-
ways and with the Irish railways went through the House of Commons we understood distinctly that the settlement of £3,000,000 in the case of Ireland was final, so far as all claims arising from war circumstances on the Irish railway were concerned was final. I do not call this an extension of the period at all. I understand from the Financial Secretary that this is money spent in exceptional circumstances on three lines which were really a war development, and we are now called upon to vote this £3,500 at a time when it would be a limited liability but the Committee is entitled to have this point in the Estimate clearly related to the £3,000,000 settlement under the agreement affecting Irish railway, because, having had an opportunity of going into these matters at the Colwyn Committee, I am surprised to find a charge of this kind introduced now, and, unless there is adequate explanation, it will be very difficult to account for it..

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: With regard to the additional sum of £10,500 which is taken to pay to the county councils if they make certain claims for the interest guaranteed under the Tramways and Light Railways Act, is there to be any set-off against that, because the other night there was a deficiency on appropriations-in-aid of £196,000 which we voted, and it was explained that through the breakdown of local government in Ireland it has been impossible to recover that money? Is there none of that money which can be set off against the £10,500, because it would seem to be unreasonable that we should pay this £10,500 and yet lose that large sum for appropriations-in-aid which was to a very large extent money due from the local authorities in Ireland, and, I presume, a large extent from the county councils in Ireland?

Sir W. BARTON: Its there in fact been any claim made for this money? I rather understand that it is in the nature of a contingent liability. I assume that these are county councils which renounced British authority and gave allegiance to Sinn Fein. If that is so it is a very disputable point whether this is a liability which falls on this Parliament at all. If there has been no such claim made, and if the facts are as stated, I doubt the wisdom of making this Estimate at all.

Mr. YOUNG: To my knowledge there has been no actual claim for this money made as yet, but I submit that if you have an acknowledged claim you must be in a position to pay your debts. If we were not to take this Supplementary Estimate, and if this claim, which is an acknowledged claim, were made we should be in the unfortunate position of having no authority from the House of Commons to pay an acknowledged claim. That is a position in which no Government should be put. Most particularly is it a position which the Government should not be in as regards any acknowledged debts due at the present time to Irish authorities. It is, after all, the usual procedure to issue Estimates at the beginning of the year, and the House in Committee of Supply authorises the Government to pay claims which may not necessarily be made upon them. It seems probable, nay certain, that this claim will be made, and since the claim is not disputed, we are bound to ask the Committee for authority to meet it when it is made.
There was also a question put by the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), and I think the same ground was covered in the question asked by the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins). This sum is distinguished from the final general railway settlement by this circumstance: That settlement was to meet all claims accruing against the Government from the outside interests owning railway companies, up to the termination of control. This is in quite a different category. It is a claim in respect of three mineral railways, and these are not railways owned by outside authorities. These are our own railways which we work through agents. What we are asking for is for money to keep them going for the short period between now and the end of the financial year, when they will become a charge upon the Southern Irish Government. A question was put to me by the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. A. Williams) as to whether there was not some set-off against this debt in the form of other liabilities on the part of the local authorities in Ireland. I do not know. It is very likely, or it may be that there are liabilities on behalf of the local authorities in Ireland which may have to be taken into account in some final settlement of accounts as between the British Exchequer and the Southern Irish Exche-
quer. I do not know as to that, but our system of keeping national accounts and voting money does not allow of any such set-off being brought in against an acknowledged and definite debt. This is a debt under Statute which we are bound to pay, and we must meet it, whatever other charges there may be, and in order to meet it, even though there were counter claims, we should require the authority of the Committee on this Supplementary Estimate.

Lord R. CECIL: I confess I do not feel very happy about this £10,500. In the first place, since we are dealing with Supplementary Estimates, may I say I do not think there should be a Supplementary Estimate for anything unless it cannot possibly be avoided? A Supplementary Estimate is a thoroughly unsound thing, and should not be allowed if it is possible to avoid it. The case for a Supplementary Estimate should be overwhelming, and it should be quite clear that the demand is urgent, that it is unavoidable, and that it could not be dealt with in a previous Estimate. I am sure I shall have the assent of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary in saying that Supplementary. Estimates are a thoroughly bad expedient in finance. What is the case put forward by the Government for this Estimate? They say: We must have this Estimate, because it may be that we shall be asked by the county councils to pay £10,500 before the 31st March. It is said that no such demand has been addressed to the Government yet, and surely, if there is any such demand addressed to them, can it not be dealt with in the Estimate for the coming year? It seems to me doubtful whether it is good policy to have a Supplementary Estimate at all. After all, the county councils can wait for a few weeks to receive their money, if that is the only difficulty.
A very serious point is raised by the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. A. Williams) when he points out that very large counter-claims have to be settled between the British Government and the local authorities of Southern Ireland, and that in many respects we have claims against them as a set-off against those claims which they have against us. Surely, before we actually vote money to pay one of their claims, as these settlements must be arrived at in the course
of a few months, it would be more reasonable to see how the accounts really stand. It may be we shall have some little difficulty in obtaining our due from the county councils. For all I know there may be one or more of them, Republican in complexion, who quite honestly think it improper to pay the debts due to this country. It would be far better to await the final settlement of accounts between the Government and the local authorities. I confess I am not at all moved by the grave official reply that it is the ordinary practice of the British Government to pay whatever is due from it, irrespective of any counterclaim.

Mr. YOUNG: What the Noble Lord has said bears not the least relation to what I said.

Lord R. CECIL: Then I am afraid I did not understand the hon. Gentleman. I am anxious not to misrepresent him, but I understood him to say that this was a claim due from us by Statute, and that according to the national system of keeping accounts we must pay it. Why should we vote it unless for the purpose of paying it? The only excuse for voting it is that we are going to pay the money away. If we are not, it is absurd to vote the money. Therefore I assume we are going to pay. If we are going to pay I submit, subject to correction, that the real meaning of the hon. Gentleman is that since this is actually due, we are not entitled to take into consideration any counterclaim which we may have against the local authority.

Mr. YOUNG: May I clear up this point. The impression which I would convey to the Committee is this, that you can rightly take into account as a counterclaim, any claim against your creditor, but all that is suggested here is that there may be claims against the Southern Irish Government or possibly against Southern Irish local authorities. I have no reason to suppose that there is any counter claim of any sort or kind, against these particular county councils. This is a simple, straightforward debt to these county councils and we cannot afford to allow that claim to be made without being in a position to meet it since it is not disputed.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I am very averse, as I believe are other
hon. Members, to this present Government having any surplus of money to play with. It is extremely dangerous to give them this money, human nature being what it is, and especially debauched as it is in the case of the present Government. Having this money they would say: "We do not like to let it go." We know that this happens in every branch of accountancy. They will say: "It we cannot use it in this way we will use it in some other way—of course, for the good of somebody." It is a very dangerous thing to let them have this money until it is absolutely and imperatively needed. I suppose they will be forced presently to introduce a Budget and to bring forward proper Estimates for next year, and there is no reason why this sum should be put in. I am certain the Irish Authorities will be prepared to wait for their money until it is passed by this House. It is not a large sum, but there is a principle involved, and this should not be brought forward at a time when the money does not even exist. There will, in all probability, be a deficit this year, and it is wrong to ask for this money until it is absolutely required.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: The Financial Secretary gave the Committee to understand that I had suggested that money which was due from County A should be set off against money which was due from us to County B. Of course, I did not suggest anything so ridiculous as that, and I did not imagine that anybody would come to any such conclusion, but if there is £196,000 due from various local authorities in Ireland to us, it would seem a very fair guess at any rata that some of that is due from the particular county councils for whose benefit we are now voting this £10,500, and I wanted an assurance that neither the system of national accounts nor any other reason would prevent us making a proper setoff of any such amount.

Sir F. BANBURY: The footnote on page 4 of the Estimates says:
Sum which may be required before the 31st March, 1922, to meet arrears of payments of contributions towards guaranteed dividends which remained over from the year 1920–21 owing to the political conditions then prevailing.
What guaranteed dividends, who guaranteed them, and why is it that they were left over for a year? This is 1921–22, so that these are apparently more than a
year in arrears, because they are dividends which remained over from the year 1920–21, and that brings me to the point raised by my Noble. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord It. Cecil) with regard to Supplementary Estimates. If this payment remained over from 1920–21, why was it not put into the Estimates for the year 1921–22, and what were the political conditions then prevailing which prevented the guaranteed dividends being paid? I am glad to see the Chief Secretary for Ireland here, because he might be able to inform us what the political conditions were which necessitated the withholding of these sums in the year 1920–21.

The CHAIRMAN rose to put the Question—

Sir F. BANBURY: If the questions I have asked have not been answered, I demand an answer.

Mr. YOUNG: I am sure the right hon. Baronet will acquit me of any intention of discourtesy, but I was not sure that it would not be more discourteous to the Committee as a whole to be guilty of repetition in answering his questions. I think I have dealt with all the questions raised by my right hon. Friend.

Sir F. BANBURY: Very well, then, so long as the questions have already been answered.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 129; Noes, 63.

Division No. 14.]
AYES.
[9.20 p.m.


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Gilmour, Lieut. Colonel Sir John
Prescott, Major Sir W. H.


Armitage, Robert
Green, Albert (Derby)
Purchase, H. G.


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar
Rae, H. Norman


Atkey, A. R.
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Ramsden, G. T.


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Greig, Colonel James William
Rankin, Captain James Stuart


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Raper, A. Baldwin


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Hancock, John George
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel


Barker, Major Robert H.
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Renwick, Sir George


Barlow, Sir Montague
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Barnston, Major Harry
Haslam, Lewis
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert
Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
Rodger, A. K.


Birchall, J. Dearman
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)


Bruton, Sir James
Hood, Sir Joseph
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hope, J. D. (Berwick & Haddington)
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hopkins, John W. W.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hudson, R. M.
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Carew, Charles Robert S.
Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Carr, W. Theodore
Hurd, Percy A.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W).
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Sugden, W. H.


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)
Sutherland, Sir William


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beate
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk George
Taylor, J.


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Lloyd, George Butler
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell (Maryhill)


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Lorden, John William
Tickler, Thomas George


Davison, Sir W. H. [Kensington, S)
Lort-Williams, J.
Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers


Dawson, Sir Philip
Manville, Edward
Walton, J. (York, W. R., Don Valley)


Dixon, Captain Herbert
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Martin, A. E.
Waring, Major Walter


Edge, Captain Sir William
Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.
Warren, Sir Alfred H.


Edwards, Allen C. (East Ham, S.)
Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield.


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Morris, Richard
Whitla, Sir William


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Murray, William (Dumfries)
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Evans, Ernest
Neal, Arthur
Wise, Frederick


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Nicholson, Brig-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Forrest, Walter
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Younger, Sir George


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh



Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Perkins, Walter Frank
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.




Dudley Ward.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)


Ammon, Charles George
Bromfield, William
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Cairns, John
Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Cape, Thomas
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sexton, James


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Kennedy, Thomas
Sutton, John Edward


Galbraith, Samuel
Kenyan, Barnet
Swan, J. E.


Gills, William
Lawson, John James
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lunn, William
Tootill, Robert


Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D.(Midlothian)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mosley, Oswald
Wignall, James


Grundy, T. W.
Myers, Thomas
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)
Naylor, Thomas Ellis
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Hayday, Arthur
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Raffan, Peter Wilson
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hogge, James Myles
Robertson, John



Holmes, J. Stanley
Rose, Frank H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Irving, Dan
Royce, William Stapleton
Mr. W. Smith and Lieut.-Com-




mander Kenworthy.

CLASS III.

LAW CHARGES AND CRIMINAL

PROSECUTIONS, IRELAND,

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £13,900, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of Mara, 1922, for the Expenses of Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland, including a Grant in relief of certain Expenses payable by Statute out of Local Rates.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I should be glad if we could have some explanation of this Vote.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The hon. and gallant Gentleman surely had no intention of crowding out my explanation. This Supplementary Estimate was required because of an under-estimate of charges under these three heads, E, F and G, for prosecutors, fees to counsel, and general law expenses. The original Estimate was made up about December, 1920. It has not proved sufficient to meet the charges under these three heads, and the reason for that is that the work of the Courts in Ireland has been greater than was anticipated in 1920 when the Estimate was prepared. Under the head of Prosecutors, one of the main items of expense is that of witnesses. These witnesses were essential in all cases dealing with malicious injuries in order to arrive at a decison in the way of awards. The fees of counsel were larger, partly because of the growth in the work of the Courts during the period under review, and partly also because of the fact that some six cases of constitutional importance were dealt with in the Courts of Appeal in Ireland, and two of high constitutional importance came to the House of Lords. These were cases which involved the briefing of leading counsel, and involved also the expen-
diture of a larger sum than could fairly have been anticipated when the Estimate was orignally prepared.
Under the heading of "General Law Expenses" the growth of £8,000 in the expenses was due directly to some 400 cases of malicious injury to property, a large amount of which belonged to the Crown. For instance, there was the burning of the Customs House in Dublin. In that case expert and other witnesses were engaged to prove the cost and the disastrous result therefrom.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Was the burning of Cork included?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I would submit the Supplementary Estimate to the Committee with confidence. I do not think the amount is large, having regard to the main reason, namely, the increased work in the Civil Courts of Ireland under these three particular heads. It is only under these three particular heads of the original Estimate that there is an increase in the Vote. Naturally I shall be very anxious to answer any question that may be raised.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I am very obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the explanation and I only rose to make certain that some explanation was forthcoming from the Government, knowing their habits.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Not mine.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: No. The right hon. Gentleman is always very facile, and very ready. He has always loud protestations and full explanations which usually mean nothing at all. I am not surprised that the number of cases has exceeded the original calculation. Just by chance I have here a list of the cases waiting hearing at the Clare County
Court. It, would take me quite a long time if I read them out. There are malicious injury cases, mainly to private houses, business houses, furniture, and hay. Just take one small town, that of Milltown:
John Breen, damage to shop window, £10; Margaret Vaughan, dwelling-house, shop and premises, totally burned and destroyed, £350; Mary Honan, dwelling-house damaged, £10, and stock-in-trade damaged, £20; Michael Sullivan, three windows damaged and destroyed, £25.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I will not trouble the Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on!"] I will read out a few. These are injuries to humble people, small people, working people whose little stock-in-trade, I dare say, are valued altogether at only some £40. These are shopkeepers, miserable little poor people, mostly harmless. Every one of those has a claim against the right hon. Gentleman's servants. I have a whole list of them. And so it goes on. Cree, Doonbeg, Ennistymon, Lahinch, Glasscloon—all these little out of the way Irish villages. Here is one:
Thomas Cullinan, Ennistymon, dwelling-house, furniture, clothing, etc., gold watch, set of harness bicycle, etc., burned"—
—everything the man possessed apparently—
total £3,000.
No wonder there are more cases than the right hon. Gentleman first of all provided for. That is just one County Court list awaiting trial.
Of course this costs money. I do not know who is going finally to pay the compensation; I daresay the successor of the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary will be able to tell us. In the meantime the mere fees to counsel, travelling expenses for witnesses, the calling in of expert witnesses, and so on is making up the substantial sum of £13,900 over and above the original Estimate of £41,900—

Lord R. CECIL: No, the original Estimate was 228,000.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I am much obliged to the Noble Lord. This sum of £13,900 is over and above the £28,000 already estimated for. Your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Hope, when challenged just, now on a point of Order, said that we had a number of small Votes, of which this was one. In comparison with the main item of some
million odd pounds this is, of course, a small Vote, but it is only one of a series, all of which are part of the process, so aptly named by an hon. Member the other night, of clearing up the mess we are in at the present time. I do not want to appear in any way unjust to the Chief Secretary, who will be included, I suppose, in the Act of Indemnity. If Mr. Michael Collins is prepared to wipe the slate clean, it is not for us on this side to stand in the way. There are plenty of other charges on which higher Members of the Government will one day be in the dock, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is worth the waste of a tear or a curse.

The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. and gallant Member to confine his remarks to what is included in the Supplementary Estimate now before the Committee.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am much obliged. I rather thought you were about to pull me up for using what you regarded as an offensive expression. I apologise, but I was using the word purely in a figurative sense. I wish to ask one or two question. Under Sub-head F it is stated that an additional sum is required owing to an under-estimate of the number of trials still taking place in the Southern Courts. Are we to understand that the ordinary Courts in Ireland are still sitting and adjudicating? I thought that when the Provisional Government was set up the Sinn Fein Courts became, not legalised, but regularised, and that they had taken over the administration of justice in the South and West of Ireland. What is happening to all the Courts that sat before the Truce and the Treaty? Are they still functioning all over the Provisional Government's territory? The words "still taking place" would imply that they are. Are they still solemnly meeting and trying cases of malicious injury to poor people whose property has been destroyed? Are they still solemnly giving judgment and putting the charges on the local authorities, although we know that there is some arrangement to be reached between our Government and the Government of Southern Ireland?
If this expense is for Courts that have been functioning and for extra litigation that was not foreseen, I do not see how we car object to it, but that matter ought to
be made perfectly clear. Is this expense still running on and is it worth the while of the Courts to function when the whole of the conditions have changed and a totally different system of jurisprudence is to be set up under the Provisional Government in Ireland? Is any of this extra expense connected with the Government of Northern Ireland, and if so will it be possible to recover it? Is there any arrangement for claims against the Northern Government? That Government, I understand, is only too willing to pay for its own Courts of Justice. On all these points we want more explanation. If this expenditure is for past cases in the Courts I do not think we can object to this sum of money, considerable though it is, but we want to be absolutely certain that under the changed conditions there are not what I might call dummy trials and sham Courts.

Mr. HOGGE: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
Here, again, we have an instance of being called upon to foot the bill for the mistakes of the Government. If the Government had pursued a policy of intelligence and sympathy in Ireland, instead of the stupid policy they adopted before they came to an agreement with the Free State, all this would have been unecessary. We are to foot the bill because of the senselessness and the want of foresight of the Government.

The CHAIRMAN: It is obvious that the hon. Gentleman would not be in order in pursuing that line of argument.

Mr. HOGGE: That is true, but I was not pursuing it. I was only stating my reasons for opposing the Vote. I am entitled to say that this is a Bill for the misdeeds of the Government, and that therefore we are entitled to vote against it, and will do so. If we look at the items of expenditure, what do we find? There is the same material here as we encounter in every Estimate brought before this House, not only on this subject, but on every other subject. Look at item E. To what is it due?" Owing to an under-estimate." Look at items F and G. To what are they due?" Owing to an under-estimate." This Government cannot even count. That is really all it means. It is because of the inability of the Government to grip the situation; it
is because of this action on the part of the worst of all possible Governments, and because they ask this House to foot the Bill for their misdeeds in the government of Ireland, that we object to spending this money.

Sir F. BANBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an explanation of what sum is included in "a Grant in Relief of certain Expenses payable by Statute out of Local Rates"?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman knows that is the same heading as in the main Estimate, but it does not necessarily follow that it is carried out in the Supplementary Estimate.

Sir F. BANBURY: There is nothing in this Estimate that comes under that.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am very glad the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut. - Commander Kenworthy) does not see his way, at any rate, to oppose this sum of money.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What I said was that if this were all work they had finished before the altered conditions and the signing of the Agreement, I did not see how we could object to it, but if work were still being done, I thought it was unnecessary, and we wanted an explanation.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: All the Courts in Ireland are sitting now and doing their duty, and they have been sitting and doing their duty to a greater extent than was anticipated in December, 1920. It is because the Courts have been open, and Judges of the High Court and County Court, and magistrates of all kinds, have been faithfully and fearlessly doing their duty that this Supplementary Estimate is demanded, and I am surprised that any hon. Member is opposing a Supplementary Estimate that would not have been asked for if the Courts had been less open, and the Judges and magistrates had been less fearless than they have proved themselves to be in Ireland. It is a delusion to think that the ordinary County Court case, to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred, under the Criminal Injuries Act, accounts for all this additional expenditure. That is not true. There is no such thing as sham Courts in Ireland, and I hope the Committee will agree with me that it is one of the most hopeful signs of Ireland that
the Courts have been continued since the Treaty, have not been interfered with, and have been very largely, and to an increasing extent, used by people throughout Ireland, both North and South. It is true that there are certain Sinn Fein Courts sitting in different parts of Ireland, but we have nothing to do with them, and I certainly have no authority for interfering with them, but the usual Courts still sit, and will continue to sit, and fearless men doing their duty will continue to carry on until a complete change is made following the spirit of the Treaty in the constitution of Courts and the administration of law in Ireland.
I did hope that this Estimate would commend itself to everybody in the House. As I say, it is to me one of the most hopeful signs for the future of Ireland. Not a judge has been dismissed; not a magistrate has been dismissed. If the Provisional Government made a serious protest against any judge, it certainly would have to be seriously considered. But we are dealing, as the hon. Member knows, with an interim state in Ireland, and it is a hopeful sign that this continuity in the administration of the law is maintained there. All these judges and magistrates are Irishmen carrying on their duty, and I must say it would be hard if the Committee found fault with this Supplementary Estimate of some £13,000 because the Courts have not only done their duty, but more than done their duty. In answer to the question raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull as to whether this amount refers to Courts in Northern Ireland, may I say that up to the 22nd November last all Estimates referred to Northern Ireland in so far as Northern Ireland was affected by the expenditure. Up to that date this Supplementary Estimate applies, but since then it does not apply. I will deal with the question of Northern Ireland in a further Supplementary Estimate, I hope, in a few moments. I hope we shall not quarrel with this Estimate, but encourage one hopeful sign at least in the rather difficult position in which all Irishmen find themselves.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: This is an Estimate for making good the expense involved in the fact that the Courts are operating in Ireland. If the Courts had not been operating in Ireland, this Esti-
mate would not have been proposed, and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman says it is a Supplementary Estimate of which we ought to be proud, and which the House ought to pass with acclamation. But why was it that when he prepared the Estimates he did not allow for the functioning of the Courts? He told us that the whole machinery of government was complete and yet he did not, on his own admission, make a sufficient demand on the Committee of Supply to meet these charges. Now he says, "This Vote is necessary, and we ought to be proud of it, because it turns out that what I said was true in March has come true in the following January." There is another question I would ask. Many unfortunate individuals in Ireland had their property destroyed, as they allege, by the forces of the Crown. As, of course, the Committee knows, under the Criminal Injuries Act it is their duty to bring an action in the County Court, and many actions were so brought. There is a famous report made on this subject by Judge Bodkin in which he said he had given £187,000 of damages against the Crown. When the right hon. Gentleman found it was getting too hot for him—to use a common expression—and that these verdicts were constantly being given against the auxiliaries and other forces of the Crown, he issued an order through the General Officer Commanding that these actions must cease, and that no County Court Judge could be permitted to hear a case in which the allegation was that the destruction had been made by the forces of the Crown. But the serious question is, what has happened to the order? Is the order still in force? When did it cease, and, particularly, what is going to happen to these judges and these pursuers against the Crown forces in the County Court?

Mr. SWAN: We were told, when the Criminal Injuries Bill was passed, that all the liability for destruction would be handed to the local authorities of the country. Evidently that is not worked as we prophesied. We asked the right hon. Gentleman if the damage to property that had been destroyed by the forces of the Crown would have to be charged upon the revenues of Britain or would it be transferred to the counties. Evidently, all the damage that was being done, instead of being charged to the local authorities, is coming again before
this House, and I should like an explanation why these charges, not only the £28,000, but the increased Estimate, should be appealed for in the light of the promises in 1920?

Mr. INSKIP: The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) prefaced his observations by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary on the recovery of his form in these Debates. May I say that my hon. and gallant Friend and his Friends have never lost their form, their persistent form, which has been to take every conceivable opportunity of which they can avail themselves to introduce all the malice and bitterness they can. It is not very long ago, Sir Edwin, since in this House we were discussing the Irish settlement, which was based upon an invitation from an august source that we were—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]—that we were to forgive and forget—

Mr. MOSLEY: On a point of Order. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman in order in introducing the name of His Majesty?

Mr. INSKIP: —to forgive and forget.

Mr. MOSLEY: May I have an answer, Sir Edwin?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I heard nothing which calls for the intervention of the Chair.

Mr. INSKIP: If we are to forgive and forget, if hon. Members opposite are to observe that invitation, to which, on this side of the House, we have responded wholeheartedly, and I think unselfishly, perhaps they had had better cease from taking a delight in every opportunity to rake up all the bitterness of the past. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Leith, with his friend the Member for the other division of Leith—

Mr. HOGGE: There is only one division of Leith.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. INSKIP: Well, then for one of the divisions of Edinburgh—I thought that the two were now united—has united in describing with every wealth of epithet—in endeavouring to make up for their paucity of reasoning—their dislike of Government policy. I do not think that anybody on this side of the House desires to go
into the past because it is the past. We should be allowed to bury the past. One would have thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite would have considered that they did not want to go into the past, in the interests of the nation. Let me, however, pass from that. Complaint is made that these expenses are being incurred in connection with the administration of law in Ireland. So far as I can understand the observations, the hon. Gentleman opposite appeared to ally himself to the hon. and gallant Member for Hull. But another member of the party to which my hon. Friends belong, in another place last night, was accusing the Government of having abdicated the true functions of government. Hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot have it both ways. Either the Government have abdicated, as appears to be the opinion of their leader the ex-Lord Chancellor, or else they have not. The Chief Secretary tells us that the Courts are functioning in Ireland. If they are functioning, these are proper expenses to be incurred in the administration of the law. What objection have hon. Gentlemen to this? None, surely! If the Courts were not functioning, as was said in another place last night, where are we? Like the children in the market place of whom it was said: "We have piped unto you and you have not danced." Hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot have it both ways. If I might give a word of advice to my hon. Friends opposite in connection with Irish affairs, it is that they should forget the past, like everyone else, try to see some hope in the future and try to join with those who are eagerly seeking peace in Ireland to find that peace. Perhaps I may make one further observation. Hon. Gentlemen opposite attach too much importance to this Vote. They think it worth while to spend a considerable portion of the time of the House in discussing this Estimate, to which they have no real cause of complaint, while they might be spending the time much more fruitfully in discussing other Estimates. The Noble Lord opposite is very anxious to answer these observations of mine, which appear to have stung him, and as I am anxious that my hon. Friends opposite should appreciate what I have said as to their putting aside malice and the bitterness, I will not stand further in the way of the Noble Lord.

Lord R. CECIL: The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just addressed the Committee has rather a strange way of pouring oil upon troubled waters. He apparently wishes to carry out the maxim of forgive and forget by suggesting motives of the most unjust kind to those with whom for the moment he is politically disagreed. May I say to my hon. and learned Friend that though this particular Estimate does not raise a very great question, it does raise a question of considerable importance constitutionally? The hon. and learned Gentleman is very anxious that we should forgive and forget. I am not at all surprised that he should wish that as a supporter of a Government with such a record in its Irish administration. I should think the present Government must be very anxious indeed that nothing further should be said it.

Mr. INSKIP: I think the Noble Lord knows perfectly well that when he sat in this corner of the Committee on more than one occasion, I joined with hon. Members opposite in criticising the Government in regard to some matters to which he now makes reference.

Lord R. CECIL: None the less the hon. and learned Member is now a very strong supporter of the Government, whatever he may have thought of them earlier. Now I turn from the hon. and learned Gentleman who has made a rather infelicitous attempt to defend the Government to the defence of the Chief Secretary for this Vote, a defence made with all that rotund eloquence which we so very much admire. The right hon. Gentleman says it is one of the most hopeful signs in Ireland that the courts are being more used. I do not know why he should be so particularly glad at there being more prosecutions. There is nothing to show that any of the prosecutions were successful. We were told that that was due to the fact that they had to pay large fees in the House of Lords, but that is not encouraging. Then we come to general law expenses (Item G), and I will read the note:
Expenses incurred in connection with claims for compensation for destruction of Government property.
I cannot conceive why that is considered so encouraging. There is an enormous increase, very nearly treble the original Estimate under this head, and that
accounts for the larger part which is due to the expenses in connection with the destruction of Government property, and yet the right hon. Gentleman is not ashamed to tell us that this is one of the most encouraging signs in the state of Ireland. It is difficult to characterise such a claim in Parliamentary language. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the larger part of this expenditure was due to the expenses incurred in connection with the destruction of the Custom House in Dublin.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I said a large part.

Lord R. CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman singled that out, and it was the only particular case he mentioned.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: There were 400 other cases.

Lord R. CECIL: Then there is the case of the Dublin Custom House and 400 other cases of destruction of Government property, and we are to take these as being symptoms of encouragement in the Government of Ireland.

Mr. HOGGE: This Debate is getting more extraordinary than when we first entered into it. The hon. and learned Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Inskip) appealed to us to forgive and forget.

Mr. INSKIP: I did not do so; it was somebody else.

Mr. HOGGE: Then I am sorry you did not do so. I thought the hon. and learned Member made his speech to induce us to forgive and forget. We have nothing to forget. The Government have to forget and forgive. I am afraid this proposal helps to remind us of these things. We are coming to some other items every one of which is a separate bill showing the stupidity of the policy of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and to ask us to forget in regard to these matters is asking us to neglect a very elementary duty. The right hon. Gentleman has told us there were 399 cases of the destruction of property in addition to the Dublin Custom House. These are all instances of Government property which the Government forces were not able to protect, and the right hon. Gentleman is in charge of all that property, and yet he has allowed 400 sacred pieces of Government property to be
injured during his wise administration in Ireland. Now he comes to the House of Commons and through the House of Commons to the British taxpayer, and asks us to contribute £8,000 in compensation for their own property which the Government have not been able to protect.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: This is for law expenses.

Mr. HOGGE: This Vote is in connection with claims for compensation for the destruction of Government property, and if the property is in the hands of the Government then they have to ask for compensation. The law expenses have been incurred in asking us to provide them with £8,000 as compensation for our own property which it was their duty to protect. Did you ever hear of any more foolish claim made by an Irish Secretary in the British House of Commons? The right hon. Gentleman asks us to pass this Vote because it is a small one and does not involve any principle. The hon. and learned Member for Central Bristol may think what he likes about us, but the kind of speech he has just made will make him and his friends the laughing stock of the British race. I am surprised that any man accustomed to pleading cases in the Law Courts will get up here and make a speech of that kind in face of the facts. The figures given are hard figures, and they mean that in every town and village in Ireland acts have been committed against innocent people because of the inability of my right hon. Friend to carry out his work, and because he has been unable to carry out his work he comes to the British taxpayer and asks us for money to wipe up his reputation and the reputation of the Government.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I hope the Chief Secretary is going to give us some reply to the very interesting questions which have been put.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I hope I shall not be failing in courtesy to my hon. and gallant Friend. Let me assure the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) that whatever form I may be in he is in unusually good form. The hon. Member speaks about this being not the only Estimate, and he says there are three more coming on asking for more money
from the British taxpayer. May I point out that not one of the other Estimates asks for a shilling from anybody; they are all token Votes, and no new money is being asked for. In this matter the hon. Member for East Edinburgh shows less than his usual care and foresight in making the statement that the House is going to be asked for more money on the next three Votes. When we come to the Estimates I will make it perfectly clear to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh that there is no necessity to get excited over what is going to happen. With reference to what the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) said, he put emphasis on the law expenses under the different heads that have occurred during the period in question owing to criminal injuries of various kinds in Ireland. No one regrets those expenses more than I do, but there has been an increase in the number of trials in the Civil Courts, not only dealing with malicious injury, but many of the cases never passed the County Courts, and some of them are ordinary High Court cases. The first word only is put down in Supplementary Estimates. It is, I admit, rather misleading in that respect. But prosecutions constitute only a small part of the Estimate. In Ireland the most liberal use is made of public money, and Irish money too, and liberal allowances are made for witnesses and for the defence of persons charged with various kinds of crime. To me it is a reassuring and hopeful sign that the Provisional Government of Ireland has continued in all their activities the Courts of the Crown of all kinds. The work of these Courts is increasing. I should have thought that the arbitrament of the law was better than the arbitrament of the pistol. The hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley), who has not the courage or desire to share in any of the dangers in Ireland—

Mr. MOSLEY: May I point out I was in danger which the right hon. Gentleman did not share prior to that?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The Estimate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"]

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. I should like to ask whether it is not usual in this House not to make personal attacks. I, at any rate, have never made personal attacks. Is it not usual when such an attack is
made and refuted that the refutation should be accepted and that there should be some acknowledgment of it and a withdrawal.

Mr. MOSLEY: Never mind.

Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: There are certain amenities of debate—

Mr. MOSLEY: Never mind.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: —[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down!"]—I am not going to sit down at the call of anyone except the Chair. I am not going to respond to such a call from Members from the Northern Parliament of Ireland.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. Member rising to a point of Order?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Yes, Sir, in defence of the amenities of the House. I believe these personal reflections are against the general practice of this Committee. I say when such a reflection is made and an explanation is given it is usual to accept the explanation and to make a withdrawal.

Mr. MOSLEY: On that point of Order. I think I am immune from any charge of the kind. My own record is sufficient to justify me. May I say I have not the slightest, desire that the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw. It is a source of profound satisfaction—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is only a question of a point of Order. The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to make a speech.

Mr. MOSLEY: I have not the slightest desire that the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw what he said. As to the Estimate—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. MOSLEY: I rose to speak on the Estimate.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have not heard anything which requires a withdrawal.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am only desirous of answering the questions which have been put by various hon. Members, and I am doing my best to conduct my share of the Debate with courtesy. I
want to answer in all seriousness the various questions that have been put. I can quite understand and share the desire on the part of the Opposition to cut down expenses to the very minimum, and I have no grievance against those whom it impels to question us. I think the only point with which I have not dealt is that raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn), who wanted to know what happened, at the time of the Truce, to the Martial Law Order issued in the martial law area, namely, that no action could be commenced in that area without the consent of the Commander-in-Chief. The hon. and gallant Member has been a soldier, and knows that when martial law is in force, the Commander-in-Chief alone issues orders in the area under his command, and that was an order issued, and rightly issued, to preclude the bringing of vexatious and frivolous actions against officers in their commands by anyone in a remote quarter, who could thereby bring a general, say, a hundred miles across country to answer some charge in reference to this matter or that. As far as I know, consent was never refused to anyone who wished to bring an acton in the martial law area, and the Order was not used harshly, or in an arbitrary manner; and I am glad to clear that matter up. It ceased with the Truce, and since the Truce we have done our best, so far as it was in our power, to get reestablished and to carry on the ordinary Courts of all kinds throughout the whole of Ireland, including the coroners' courts, which were at one time supplanted by miltary courts of inquiry. It is because of the increase of business—the natural increase—that I am asking for this supplementary sum, and I still hope that the Committee will encourage the arbitrament of the law by giving me the Vote.

Sir G. COLLINS: The Chief Secretary endeavoured to make light of the increased burdens to which the Committee is being asked to assent. He has, I am afraid, forgotten that within the last hour and a half he presented to this Committee an Estimate for £215,000 for compensation for criminal injuries to life and property during his administration in Ireland, and later on, if the Committee decides to grant the Vote presently under discussion, he will ask for a further sum of money under Vote 18A. I am afraid that when he taunted my hon. Friend
the Member for East Edinburgh with getting excited over the present Estimate, he forgot the Estimate which he presented yesterday afternoon for a total sum of £8,500,000 for the Royal Irish Constabulary. I grant that this is a Supplementary Estimate, but the total under discussion was the total for the year, namely, £8,500,000. The total figure which is under discussion is the only figure the taxpayer is interested in. Whether the Supplementary Estimate be large or small the total sum for the Irish Constabulary for the present year is £8,500,000, an increase of £5,000,000 during the last three or four years, and, therefore, if the Chief Secretary would adopt perhaps a more conciliatory attitude in asking the Committee to pass these sums he might meet with more success, and get his Estimates at an earlier hour. To forgive and forget is very pleasant, but the taxpayer outside does not so readily forget the policy of His Majesty's Government. They have to pay taxes by the sweat of their brow, and through the burden placed on their shoulders, partly through the policy of the Chief Secretary there is unemployment. The Chief Secretary makes light of these large sums, and in the Supplementary Estimates, which will be considered at a later stage, there is a further sum of £500,000 for the Irish Office. I hope the Chief Secretary will remember these unpleasant realities, and endeavour to face the situation.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: Before the Government get this Vote we should have some explanation as to how long these extra law charges are going to continue. Apparently the Government are very well satisfied that the Courts are functioning better than they have for many years, but how long is this country to go on paying for that happy state of things? When is the Provisional Government going to take over its Law Courts and the expense of running them? Apparently the right hon. Gentleman looks forward to the continuance of these Courts for some considerable time, and he referred to the next Estimate. There is a very illuminating note to it—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): The hon. and gallant Gentleman can discuss that later when we come to it.

Colonel WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman referred to this next Vote and was not called to order.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I nearly called him to order.

Colonel WILLIAMS: I was only quoting this Vote to show that by the next Estimate the Government clearly show that these Courts are coming to an end very quickly and that new Courts are being set up. If that is so, we ought to have some assurance that this House will not be called upon to vote these sums in future. We have paid enough for Ireland, and now that they have got self-government—and I hope the experiment will succeed—they should take over the administration of their own Courts. They should pay their own legal charges and absolve the British taxpayer.

Mr. HOGGE: There is only one way in which the Government can stop discussions of the Estimates, and that is either by refusing to give the information or by closuring those of us who wish to take part in it. I do not think the Government can claim that the Opposition has wasted any time on the Supplementary Estimates. We have now gone beyond the Estimate which they expected to get by 11 o'clock, not that I grudge them anything they can get, but if they want their Estimates they have to face this question, and they have not faced it. I will put again those that have not been answered. [HON. MEMBERS "Divide!"] This is a more serious matter than some hon. Members seem to think. We are in a period of interragnum in Ireland. The Provisional Government is not yet set up, vested with full powers, and is not functioning. Therefore, the Courts that are functioning must be British Courts, and the expenses of them must be paid by the British Government. If that is so, what is the nature of the trials that have still to take place in the Civil Courts in Ireland? I will not discuss the question of Northern Ireland, because we have present to-night the Speaker of the Northern Parliament, who probably can inform the House better than the Chief Secretary how the law functions in the North of Ireland.
With respect to the South of Ireland, the House is to be invited next Monday to get on with the Bill which sets up
the Government of Southern Ireland. Are these cases which are going on in the courts, with claims against the British Government, to be carried on, or, if not, who is to carry them on? Presume for the moment that some house in some village in Ireland has been destroyed and that compensation is being sought for in the courts. That, at the present time, is a charge against us in this country, and we shall have to discharge that liability. A fortnight hence that country will be in the position of having its own Provisional Government. Surely in the name of common sense it is one of the very worst beginnings for any new Government that there should be a transfer of that kind of case. Are His Majesty's Government going to decide all these cases before the Provisional Government is functioning? We are told that the trials are still taking place, and we are asked to sanction this amount of money for trials which are going on. Inside a very short period they may be going on under the auspices of an entirely different Government. Are the courts functioning in such a way that the cases will be cleared up before the new Government operates? It is a fact that new courts are to be created. If those new courts are created, are they taking over the cases which are pending now between the British Government and the Provisional Government?
With regard to Government property, the Chief Secretary has never mentioned one of the 399 Government properties which have been destroyed. If a Government property has been destroyed and we are handing over the government to the Parliament of Southern Ireland, why not hand over the destroyed Government property? Why worry about compensation? If you have a Government building in the South of Ireland that has suffered any sort of damage as a result of recent events in Ireland, why not hand it over as it is? Do I understand from the Chief Secretary that before we hand over the post office in Dublin—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We are not now discussing the compensation to be paid for property destroyed. We are discussing legal expenses in connection with claims for compensation for the destruction of property.

Mr. HOGGE: That is quite true, but it will occur to you that if you incur law expenses in connection with the destruc-
tion of Government property, that means that those expenses are incurred with a view to securing compensation for Government property. My right hon. Friend has said that there are 400 cases of that kind, and we are entitled to ask what they are.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not entitled to enter into a discussion of what you would have for this property, and what steps the Government should take in handing over these properties to somebody else. We are now discussing merely the action of the Government in regard to legal proceedings in these cases. If hon. Members were to go into the 399 cases and discuss every one of these destroyed properties, this Debate on these lines would get- out of order. We can only discuss the legal expenses.

Mr. HOGGE: I quite agree. I never dreamt for a moment of entering into a discussion of these various properties, but I have asked for the names of the properties concerned, which I am entitled to know, because the law expenses are incurred in connection with those properties. If those buildings were handed over as they were there would be no law expenses and no demand for £8,000. We object to the way in which the Government say, "We have got to wipe off those liabilities, and you have got to give us the money without any explanation." The Government in this matter are carrying out a policy which we have reprobated from start to finish, and if there is any loss to rest on anybody in connection with this, it must rest on those who by their deeds have incurred those expenses.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: We are dealing with expenses under Subhead G and are asked to pay £8,000 which is the greater part of the total Estimate of £13,900. It may be a small amount, but it is a question of money, though the right hon. Gentleman said that these were Estimates which meant no money.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: No. Quite wrong.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If the right hon. Gentleman will read the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow he will find that he did make that blunder, and then I hope he will apologise. This Estimate of £8,000 is quite inadequately explained,
as being due to an under-estimate of the number of trials still taking place in the Civil Courts, and expenses incurred in connection with claims for compensation. I have taken the trouble of looking at the Main Estimate and I cannot see how the amount under this Sub-head comes to be swollen to £8,000. In 1920–21 the expenses of Crown Solicitors at Winter Assizes came to £20 and in 1921–22 in spite of a much greater number of cases, owing to the unfortunate disorder in Ireland the amount allowed for this purpose was exactly the same—£20 for Crown solicitors at the Winter Assizes, which are, I suppose, the Assizes sitting at the present moment. In the case of Sessional Crown Solicitors' expenses for special duties, the sum in that Estimate is £10 for each of those years. The total sum for law charges and criminal prosecutions for 1921–22 is £79,115. The expenses of juries at Assizes in each of the years I have mentioned is put down at £300 in spite of the increase in disorder, and the defence of prisoners in cases of murder at £250—in each of those years—while the extra expenses of traversers and their witnesses in cases at Winter Assizes is estimated at £800 in each year. This is the point which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary made so much of—that the travelling expenses of witnesses increased, and that money was being lavishly expended in Ireland.
I should think it is being very lavishly expended when £8,000 is suddenly put on for an extra two months' work, notwithstanding the fact that the charge under this particular Subhead is only increased by £500 in the previous year as compared with 1920–21 in spite of the great increase in trials of all sorts. I hope the right hon. Gentleman is studying the main Estimate, and if he does so, he will find that his officials have misinformed him on this point or that he has not given us the full information. In the main Estimate, under Subhead G, the last item is miscellaneous charges, which is £3,120 for 1921–22, as against £2,620 in the previous year, and that is the increase of £500 to which I have referred. Where is the necessity for £8,000 coming in now under Subhead G? There is a great increase in crime and consequently in law actions between those two years, but only £500 extra was spent. The salaries of
judges and court attendants are fixed and because there are mire cases it is ridiculous to ask for a special Estimate to this amount. Whether the judges get white gloves or are overwhelmed with work, what I may call the overhead charges—with respect to hon. and learned Members—the general running expenses of the Courts remain the same. By looking into the main Estimates, I really claim to have made out a case. The right hon. Gentleman's explanation of extra business in the Courts will not hold water for a minute. The Chief Secretary has been misinformed by somebody. This money is not on account of extra business, and I have proved that to any fair-minded Member of the Committee, I claim, by examining the details.
I am going to volunteer what I think is the real explanation, and I believe the right hon. Gentleman will thank me for doing him a service. There is an irregularity, and I believe I knew what it is. There is money being spent in Ireland on the special courts set up since the Truce by the Provisional Government, and, as usual, we are being asked to foot the bill. I believe that is the explanation. A mere cursory examination of the Estimates shows that, taking last year and this year and the ordinary expenses that have been incurred owing to the extra business in the courts, an increase of this amount is impossible of explanation. It is going on somewhere else. I daresay it is going on legal charges, and that certain people have salved their consciences by saying that these special courts are resorted to by people who will not go near the King's Courts, and that therefore the expense ought to go into the account. The right hon. Gentleman will find out that I am right in this matter and that this is a charge which ought not to be put on the British taxpayer in this form. I have never been more serious in my life than I am now. If we are asked to pay for special courts which have been found necessary in Ireland and are doing good work there, I am prepared to do that, but we ought to be told that. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has had a great burden of very responsible work, and he has had my sympathy in the last few months, and I believe he has not been able to give the attention to these Estimates which he would like to give, and he has been misled by somebody in
Ireland, with the result that we are being asked to find money for irregular courts without being advised of the facts.
Unless the right hon. Gentleman call show us the full facts, I am going to move to report progress. All hon. Members of the Committee should have some regard for the extreme importance, at the present time, of the Estimates and especially of these Supplementary Estimates, being presented in a regular way and in full detail, and in this case that rule has been departed from.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The hon. and gallant Member who has just resumed his seat has propounded a proposition which is absolutely wrong and false, and I am able to give him a reassuring negative. None of this money is for Courts other than the Courts of the Crown in Ireland; none of it. When the hon. and gallant Member made a comparison between the special expenses of Crown solicitors at the assizes, of £10, he might have told the Committee that the actual expenses of the Crown Solicitors of Ireland in the original Estimate for the current year were £29,885, and that the £10 was an isolated amount for special work at one of the Winter Assizes. There is nothing in the Supplementary Estimate that is not perfectly clear, and I should have thought that after the explanation made to him it was perfectly understandable to every hon. Member of the Committee.
The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) is naturally anxious about the cost of the administration of the Courts until the new Government of what will be the Free State completely takes over the administration of the law. This cost of the administration of the law will be carried by this House up to the end of this financial year. I cannot say whether that will finish it or not. That is a matter which must be between His Majesty's Government and the Government of Southern Ireland. All I can say is that this Supplementary Estimate asks for money up to the end of the present financial year and no longer.
No one is prejudiced in Ireland so far as the administration of the law is

concerned by the present position. In other words, the great growth of civil litigation in the Courts is testimony to the fact that the people seek the Courts to settle their affairs.

Lord R. CECIL: This is not civil litigation. There is not a word about civil litigation.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The Supplementary Estimate is for the increasing number of trials in connection with the Civil Courts.

Lord R. CECIL: There is a misapprehension. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the sub-heading E, which deals solely with criminal trials at Assizes, Quarter Sessions, Petty Sessions, and so on.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: In the original Subhead E, that is quite so, but I am dealing with the larger point. I have gone over it again and again, and, I hope, with courtesy.

Mr. HOGGE: You are not giving us any explanation.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am trying. There is just this point with regard to Government property. The property, in the main, which has been destroyed has been police barracks, and in order to secure a valuation it is necessary to have a claim brought before the County Court in the particular area in which the premises were situated. In regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Colonel P. Williams) as to the new Courts, there are no new Courts contemplated by this Estimate. This Estimate refers to the division of Courts in Ireland between Northern and Southern Ireland. There are no new Courts other than those of the Crown. I hope the Committee will now give me the Supplementary Estimate and so assist continuity in the administration of law in Ireland.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £13,800, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 52; Noes, 171.

Division No. 15.]
AYES.
[10.56 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Cape, Thomas


Amman, Charles George
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Cairns, John
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Holmes, J. Stanley
Royce, William Stapleton


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sexton, James


Davies, Rhys John (Westhougnton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kennedy, Thomas
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Sutton, John Edward


Gillis, William
Lawson, John James
Swan, J. E.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lunn, William
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mosley, Oswald
Wignall, James


Grundy, T. W.
Myers, Thomas
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)
Naylor, Thomas Ellis



Hayday, Arthur
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Raffan, peter Wilson
Colonel Penry Williams and Mr.


Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Rendall.


Hogge, James Myles
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)



NOES


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Armitage, Robert
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
O'Neill, Rt. Hon Hugh


Armstrong Henry Bruce
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Glyn, Major Ralph
Perkins, Walter Frank


Atkey, A. R.
Gould, James C.
Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Green, Albert (Derby)
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Poison, Sir Thomas A.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Prescott, Major Sir W. H.


Barker, Major Robert H.
Greig, Colonel James William
Purchase, H. G.


Barlow, Sir Montague
Gretton, Colonel John
Rae, H. Norman


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Barnston, Major Harry
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Ramsden, G. T.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Rankin, Captain James Stuart


Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert
Hancock, John George
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Renwick, Sir George


Birchall, J. Dearman
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Blane, T. A.
Haslam, Lewis
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
Rodger, A. K.


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Rose, Frank H.


Brown, Major D. C.
Hinds, John
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Bruton, Sir James
Hood, Sir Joseph
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Seager, Sir William


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Howard, Major S. G.
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Alan Hughes
Hudson, R. M.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hunter Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)


Carew, Charles Robert S.
Hurd, Percy A.
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Carr, W. Theodore
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Birm., Aston)
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Sturrock, J. Leng


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Sugden, W. H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A.(Birm., W.)
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Sutherland, Sir William


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Taylor, J.


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Clough, Sir Robert
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Coats, Sir Stuart
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell (Maryhill)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Townley, Maximilian G.


Cope, Major William
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferre[...])


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Lloyd, George Butler
Walton, J. (York. W. R., Don Valley)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lloyd Greame, Sir P.
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Lorden, John William
Waring, Major Walter


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lort-Williams, J
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Dawson Sir Philip
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Warren, Sir Alfred H.


Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Manville, Edward
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Edge, Captain Sir William
Martin, A. E.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H


Ednam, Viscount
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Whitla, Sir William


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)
Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Elveden, Viscount
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Windsor, Viscount


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Wise, Frederick


Evans, Ernest
Murchison, C. K.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Falcon, Captain Michael
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Murray, William (Dumfries)
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Neal, Arthur
Younger, Sir George


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)



Forrest, Walter
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Mr. McCurdy and Colonel Leslie




Wilson.


Original Question put, and agreed to.

It being after Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the house.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

PERFORMING ANIMALS.

Ordered, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the conditions under which performing animals are trained and exhibited, and to consider whether legislation is desirable to prohibit or regulate such training and exhibition; and, if so, what lines such legislation should follow.

Committee nominated of Captain Bowyer, Sir John Butcher, Brigadier-General Colvin, Sir Walter de Frece, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Raymond Greene, Mr. Jesson, Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy, Captain O'Grady, Mr. Raper, Mr. Frederick Roberts, Mr. Seddon,, Mr. Stanton, Mr. Swan, Mr. Trevelyan Thomson, and Lieut.-Colonel Willoughby."

Ordered, "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records."

Ordered, "That Five be the quorum."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Seven minutes after Eleven o'Clock.